Sexual and Reproductive Health Services and Promotion in Tertiary Institutions: A Systematic Content Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is increasingly being recognised as a key concern for young people within tertiary settings. This is reflected within the Okanagan Charter: An International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges. In response, tertiary institutions around the world have developed and are developing SRH promotion and services to meet the needs of their students. However, the scope and duration of such programs vary across institutions. To identify best practice within this area, a systematic scoping content review of scholarly literature published in English was conducted. The review sought out research conducted in Australia, USA, Canada, UK and New Zealand. Findings from the review were used in the development of a SRH program at an Australian university. Results indicate that the capacity for programs to have significant positive impact on university students is highly dependent on a range of SRH priorities. These priorities include utilising pilot programs in the development and evaluation of SRH initiatives, including peers in the delivery of SRH services, identifying key demographics and high-risk sub-populations within the institution and surrounding geographical area, providing targeted SRH education, and ensuring accessibility to STI screening and contraception on campus. Key lessons include the importance of an integrated approach in delivering SRH programs, where the departments leading such initiates have buy-in and support from a range of stakeholders across the institution. A best practice model for the development and delivery of SRH programs at tertiary institutions, in line with the Okanagan Charter, is recommended.
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 | 0.018 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".