Youth perspectives on sexually transmitted infections and sexual health in Northern Canada and implications for public health practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High rates of sexually transmitted infections in the Arctic have been a focus of recent research, and youth are believed to be at greatest risk of infection. Little research has focused on understanding youth perspectives on sexual health. The goal of this study was to collect the perspectives of youth in Nunavut on sexual health and relationships with the intent of informing public health practice. METHOD: This qualitative research study was conducted within an Indigenous knowledge framework with a focus on Inuit ways of knowing. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews in three Nunavut communities with 17 youth between the ages of 14 and 19 years. Participants were asked open-ended questions about their experiences talking about sexual health and relationships with their family, peers, teachers or others in the community. RESULTS: There are four key findings, which are important for public health: (a) Parents/caregivers are the preferred source of knowledge about sexual health and relationships among youth respondents; (b) youth did not report using the Internet for sexual health information; (c) youth related sexual decision-making to the broader community context and determinants of health, such as poverty; and (d) youth discussed sexual health in terms of desire and love, which is an aspect of sexual health often omitted from the discourse. IMPLICATIONS AND CONTRIBUTION: The youth in this study articulated perspectives on sexual health, which are largely neglected in current public health practice in the North. The findings from this study underscore the important role of community-led participatory research in contributing to our understanding of the public health challenges in our communities today, and provide direction for future interventions and 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".