Access to and use of sexual health care services among young Canadians with and without a history of sexual coercion.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine access to and use of sexual health care services among adolescents and young adults with and without a history of sexual coercion, and to examine whether a history of sexual coercion was a barrier to using sexual health care services. DESIGN: Online survey. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 405 adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 21. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' sexual histories, sexual coercion histories, current psychological functioning, and perceptions and use of health care services. RESULTS: A history of sexual coercion was reported by 29.6% of participants; more female participants reported a history of sexual coercion than male participants did, and female participants reported more related distress than male participants did. Those with a history of sexual coercion reported more sexual health-related visits than those without a history of sexual coercion did. Among participants with and without sexual coercion histories, there were no differences in difficulty accessing care, perceived quality of care, or rates of unmet health needs. Among those who reported a history of sexual coercion, the odds of having a sexual health-related visit increased for those who had had a routine checkup in the previous year (odds ratio = 8.29) and those who believed it was not difficult to access care (odds ratio = 1.74). CONCLUSION: Having a history of sexual coercion was not a barrier to the use of health care services among adolescents and young adults. In fact, rates of health care service use were higher among those with a history of sexual coercion than those without such a history.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".