Knowledge, attitude and practice related to reproductive health among female adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Reproductive health (RH) is a crucial aspect of general health; it is a reflection of health during adolescence and adulthood. The period of adolescence in females is a period of physical and psychological preparation for safe motherhood. As direct reproducers, adolescent girls’ health influences not only their own health but also the health of the future generation. This study aimed to assess knowledge, hygiene practices during menses, and attitudes of female adolescents in Riyadh female secondary schools regarding RH aspects.Methods: A quantitative descriptive cross-sectional design was used for this study conducted on 350 female students selected from governmental secondary schools in Riyadh using multistage random sample type. Two tools were used for data collection in the current study: a self-administered questionnaire and an Attitudinal Assessment scale.Results: The findings showed that more than two-thirds (66.3%) of the participants had inaccurate knowledge, while about one-third (33.7%) of them had correct knowledge regarding RH. With respect to overall hygiene practices during menstruation, about 95.4% had correct menstruation hygiene practice, while only 4.6% had incorrect practices. The majority (88.3%) of students had positive attitudes regarding RH, while only 11.7% had negative attitudes. Mothers are a vital source of information regarding RH.Conclusions: The present study concluded that female adolescents had unsatisfactory knowledge, inadequate hygiene practices, and positive attitudes toward RH. It is recommended to improve adolescents’ knowledge regarding RH issues and involve their parents and teachers to provide appropriate education related to RH issues.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it