Teens' Perspectives on Barriers and Facilitators to Accessing School-based Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This qualitative study explores teens' perspectives on facilitators and barriers to accessing school-based clinics, emphasizing the importance of youth self-report. Methods: We conducted in-person interviews with teens (N = 25) at 2 high schools that had school-based clinics in Winnipeg, Manitoba (Canada). We supplemented the interviews with a brief questionnaire administered to a sample of teens at both schools (N = 105). Data were iteratively coded and analyzed using NVivo. Results: Teens framed 5 clinic attributes that facilitated access: confidential, welcoming, judgment-free, validating and understanding, and fast/easy/convenient. Teens identified judgment from peers, fear and anxiety, hours/wait times, lack of privacy, and teens who gather at the clinic to socialize as factors that made the clinic hard to access or inhibited access entirely. Conclusions: School-based clinics were highly regarded by teens who used them. The most important factors underlying ease of use were assurance of confidentiality and a positive client-provider relationship that made teens feel safe and comfortable. However, considerable individual and structural barriers remain to ensuring the clinics are teen-friendly and accessible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".