University Students' Sexual Health Knowledge: A Scoping Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual health plays an important role in the well-being of university students. The literature shows that the majority of university undergraduates are sexually active and at high risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs); however, the breadth and degree of the literature on their sexual health knowledge is unclear. The purpose of this scoping review was to gain a deeper understanding of the state of research on the sexual health knowledge of university/college students globally. A 5-stage framework was used to guide the review and to characterize the literature on sexual health knowledge. Articles published in English between 2000 and 2014 were reviewed if they included university students as a population of interest and described the methods used to measure sexual health knowledge. Of the 2,386 articles retrieved, 91 met the criteria. The majority of the articles (n = 79) used a cross-sectional design to investigate students' knowledge about HIV/AIDS (n = 45), STIs (n = 23), HPV (n = 9), and contraception (n = 24). The review highlights gaps in the literature and in findings relating to the research dominance of various geographic locations, common research designs, the wide range of measurement tools used, and the variety of sexual health knowledge outcomes of interest. The review provides a useful description of the literature on sexual health knowledge among university/college students and some recommendations for moving the field forward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".