MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069138073 · doi:10.1016/j.ijans.2015.01.001

Factors influencing the adolescent pregnancy rate in the Greater Giyani Municipality, Limpopo Province – South Africa

2015· article· en· W2069138073 on OpenAlexaff
Lenny Tina Mushwana, L.V. Monareng, Solina Richter, Hélène Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersErasmus+University of South Africa
KeywordsReproductive healthPsychosocialPeer pressureConfidentialityCurriculumMedicineHuman sexualityPregnancyFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsDemographyPsychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationPsychiatrySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A quantitative, descriptive and explorative survey was conducted to determine factors that influence adolescent pregnancy rate among teenage girls ( n = 147) attending four high schools in the Greater Giyani Municipality in South Africa . Data was collected using a validated questionnaire which had a reliability of 0.65. Response frequency distributions, two-way frequency tables, Chi-square tests and Cochran–Armitage Trend Tests were used to determine the effect with the demographic characteristics of participants. Participants reported that health services were not conveniently available for them. Their relationship with nurses was poor ( p < 0.05) as reported by 73% of participants with regard to maintenance of confidentiality. Participants reported key psychosocial variables such as inadequate sexual knowledge (61%), changing attitudes towards sex (58.9%) and peer pressure (56.3%) as contributory to high pregnancy rate. Recommendations were made to improve school health services, reproductive education in school curricula focussing on reproductive health , sexuality and guidance for future research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.361
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.108 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Africa Nursing SciencesSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207