Youth participation in sexual and reproductive health: policy, practice, and progress in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Ensuring youth participation in policymaking that affects their health and well-being is increasingly recognized as a strategy to improve young people's reproductive health. This paper aimed to describe the policy context and analyze underlying factors that influence youth participation in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) policymaking in Malawi. METHODS: This critical, focused ethnographic study is informed by postcolonial feminism and difference-centered citizenship theory, based on data collected from October 2017 to May 2018. Multiple research methods were employed: document analysis, focus group discussions, and "moderate" participant observation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants and youth, supplemented by open-ended drawing exercises with youth. RESULTS: Progressive policies and the presence of youth in some policymaking structures indicate substantial headway in Malawi. However, underlying structural and societal factors circumscribe young people's lived experiences of participation. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent progress in involving young people in SRH policymaking, notable gaps remain between policy and practice. Recognizing and integrating young people in all stages of SRH policymaking is critical to catalyzing the social and political changes necessary to ensure their reproductive health and well-being.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".