MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125244035 · doi:10.1100/tsw.2006.161

The Perception of South African Adolescents Regarding Primary Health Care Services

2006· article· en· W2125244035 on OpenAlexaff
Magdalena S. Richter, Vivian Mfolo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Scientific World JOURNAL · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdolescent healthMultidisciplinary approachHealth careMedicinePublic healthNursingService (business)Health servicesFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthPopulationBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the South African public health facilities fail to provide adolescent-friendly health services. A quantitative, descriptive research study was conducted at Stinkwater, a rural area in Hammanskraal, South Africa. The objective of the study was to describe the adolescent's preferences regarding primary health care services. A survey was conducted among 119 adolescents. It was found that adolescents wished to be involved in the planning of the activities of the adolescent health service, and that friendliness and respect for adolescents were seen as desirable characteristics of an adolescent-friendly health care service. Adolescents preferred services to be available throughout the week and to be located at the school, youth center, community center, hospital, or clinic. Health education was indicated as a priority and the health care team should include different members of a multidisciplinary team. Adolescents preferred that their health services be separated from adult services and that a male nurse be employed in the adolescent service in order to create a less feminine image. It was also recommended that all adolescents be educated about the types of services available. Understanding health care service preferences of adolescents is needed in order to deliver optimal health care to this group.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Scientific World JOURNALSame topicChild and Adolescent HealthFrench-language works237,207