Young women’s reproductive health conversations: Roles of maternal figures and clinical practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of clinical providers and mothers on young women's ability to have confidential, candid reproductive health conversations with their providers. METHODS: We conducted 14 focus groups with 48 women aged 15-28 years (n = 9), and 32 reproductive healthcare workers (n = 5). Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analyzed using inductive coding and thematic analyses. We examined findings through the lens of paternalism, a theory that illustrates adults' role in children's autonomy and wellbeing. RESULTS: Mothers have a substantial impact on young women's health values, knowledge, and empowerment. Young women reported bringing information from their mothers into patient-provider health discussions. Clinical best practices included intermingled components of office policies, state laws, and clinical guidelines, which supported health workers' actions to have confidential conversations. There were variations in how health workers engaged young women in a confidential conversation within the exam room. CONCLUSIONS: Both young women and health workers benefit from situations in which health workers firmly ask the parent to leave the exam room for a private conversation with the patient. Young women reported this improves their comfort in asking the questions they need to make the best decision for themselves. Clinic leadership needs to ensure that confidentiality surrounding young women's reproductive health is uniform throughout their practice and integrated into patient flow.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".