Adolescents Discussing Sexual Behaviors With Key Influencing Audiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing concern on early initiation of sexual activity among adolescents, increasing sexually transmitted infections, and teenage pregnancy in Uganda. Adolescents perceptions of these sexual behaviors might be the result of discussing sexual and reproductive health issues with key influencing audiences. This study qualitatively explored the effect of sexuality discussions with key influencing audiences by means of in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with adolescents (N=83). Findings indicate that adolescence stage comes with changes of intense sexual desires, often presumed difficult to control thus leading adolescents to engage in sexual activities. Adolescents indicated that they were aware of the sexual behaviors such as condom use, contraception use, and multiple concurrent partnerships, but intertwined with persistent myths and misconceptions. Although discussing sexuality issues with someone was found to be instrumental, adolescent highlighted challenges that hinder discussion with key influencers. Challenges include, parents lack of time to talk to their children; some religious affiliations perceived to discourage use of contraception; limited skills of community health workers to address adolescent information needs; meetings held in groups not followed up with age-focused or one-on-one discussions; negative health workers’ attitudes and use of technical language; and peer pressure. These findings suggest the need to provide adequate and updated information to clear any misconceptions and strengthening of key influencers’ communication skills to gain confidence in addressing adolescent sexual and reproductive health needs.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".