Should condoms be available in secondary schools? Discourse and policy dilemma for safeguarding adolescent reproductive and sexual health in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As a response to challenges associated with adolescent reproductive and sexual health, policy makers in Rwanda have instituted preventive measures against risky sexual behaviours among adolescents. There is an ongoing debate on whether condoms should be made available in secondary schools to minimise risks related to unprotected sex in the context of a growing number of unintended pregnancies among school girls. This paper aims to examine the proposal of condom provision in Rwandan secondary schools through the analysis of policy narratives and the claims-making process. METHODS: A narrative policy analysis was used to understand the claims and counter claims surrounding the debate on the provision of condoms in secondary schools. Documents that were consulted include: the national reproductive health policy, the girls' education policy, the national behaviour change and communication policy for the health sector, the Rwanda national policy on condoms, the adolescent sexual reproductive health and rights policy and the Rwanda family planning policy. RESULTS: Social and cultural norms in the Rwandan context consider adolescent sexual practices as immoral and thus reject the idea of providing condoms in secondary schools. However, some stakeholders promoting reproductive health suggest that ignoring that some adolescents are sexually active will prevent them from accessing appropriate reproductive and sexual health protective programmes. Consequently, adolescents will be exposed to risky sexual behaviours, a situation which may be counter productive to the overarching goal of safeguarding adolescent sexual health which might impact their long-term education goals. CONCLUSION: Making condoms available in secondary schools evokes different meanings among the debaters, underscoring the complex nature of the condom provision debate in Rwanda. This paper calls for a revision of policies related to adolescent reproductive and sexual health in order to answer to the issues of risky sexual behaviours among secondary school students.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".