MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006279155 · doi:10.1186/s12889-019-8058-5

Exploring issues in caregivers and parent communication of sexual and reproductive health matters with adolescents in Ebonyi state, Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3006279155 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chinyere Mbachu, Ifunanya Clara Agu, Irene Ifeyinwa Eze, Chibuike Agu, Uche Ezenwaka, Nkoli Ezumah, Obinna Onwujekwe

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsReproductive healthMedicineFocus groupThematic analysisBiostatisticsTeenage pregnancyQualitative researchPremarital sexQualitative propertyHuman sexualityPublic healthDevelopmental psychologyDemographyPsychologyClinical psychologyPopulationSexual behaviorEnvironmental healthGender studiesNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Parent-child communication is an effective tool for fostering healthy sexual and reproductive behaviours among adolescents. However, the topic is underexplored in Nigeria. This study examines how parents and caregivers communicate sexual and reproductive health-related matters with adolescents aged 13-18 years in Nigeria. METHOD: The study was undertaken in six communities in Ebonyi state, Nigeria using quantitative and qualitative research methods. Data were collected through, i) cluster randomized survey of 1057 adolescents aged 13-18 years, ii) twelve sex-disaggregated focus group discussions with adolescents aged 13 to 18 years, and iii) eight in-depth interviews with parents and caregivers. Univariate and bivariate analysis were performed for quantitative data, while qualitative data were analysed using thematic framework approach. RESULTS: Less than half (47.9%) of adolescents in the survey reported ever discussing sex-related matters with anyone. Three-quarters of those who had this discussion did so with a friend/peer and this had significant correlation with sex/gender (p = 0.04). Out of 1057 adolescents who participated in the survey only 4.5% had ever discussed sex-related matters with a parent and this correlated significantly with wealth index (p = 0.003). Findings from qualitative interviews show that sex-related discussions between parents and adolescents are sporadic, mostly triggered by unpleasant occurrences, and consist of, i) information on pubertal changes, ii) warnings against intersex relationships and premarital sex, iii) promotion of abstinence, and iv) warnings against teenage pregnancy and unsafe abortion. Some parents were of the opinion that sex-related matters should not be discussed with adolescents because it could be interpreted as tolerance for sexual promiscuity. Overall, parents expressed that their capacity to discuss sex-related matters with adolescents is limited by lack of knowledge, and restrictive religious and cultural norms about adolescent sexuality. CONCLUSION: Communication between parents and adolescents on sexual health and reproductive-related matters rarely occurs. However, when it does, it mostly consists of strict warnings that may not protect adolescents from making unhealthy sexual and reproductive health choices. Interventions to improve parent-adolescent communication of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) should aim at improving parents' capacity to communicate sexual and reproductive health matters, and deconstructing sociocultural norms around adolescent sexuality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.314
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.112 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations96
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207