Targeting factors for change: contraceptive counselling and care of female adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sexual and reproductive health care should empower and enable all individuals to have a sex life that is as safe and pleasurable as possible. Achievement of this goal for adolescents is often impeded by regional and sociocultural barriers. OBJECTIVES: To review global barriers to provision of effective counselling and care of adolescents seeking advice on contraception and sexual and reproductive health and identify elements of best practice that can be adapted to meet their needs at regional level. METHODS: Experts with clinical experience and a scholarly background in the provision of contraceptive services to adolescents participated in a stepwise process of literature review and discussion according to the agreed objectives. RESULTS: The Global CARE (Contraception: Access, Resources, Education) group identified barriers to the access, availability and acceptance of contraception by adolescents, not only at the political and sociocultural level but also within health care practice. The group collected and summarized successful local strategies and tools suitable for adaptation in other regions. Elements of best practice for providing contraception regardless of setting or regional constraints, including required skills, knowledge, and attitudes, were also proposed. CONCLUSION: Sharing of evidence-based best practice in delivering contraceptive services, improvements in health care provider education, and sharing of experience between countries will hopefully help to overcome the barriers to appropriate and effective counselling and care of adolescents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".