The Capacity of Adolescent- Friendly Reproductive Health Services to Promote Sexual Reproductive Health among Adolescents in Bindura Urban of Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent Reproductive Health Services (ARHS) in promoting Sexual Reproductive Health (SRH) among adolescents in Bindura Urban of Zimbabwe. Qualitative methodology was employed to understand the utilisation of AFRHS. Health service utilisation was assessed through key informant interviews, focus group discussions, observations and documentary search. The data collection methods used allowed the researcher to get insight on adolescents’ experience and the factors associated with their accessing SRH services from AFRHS; the meaning of AFRHS for adolescents; health care providers’ attitudes towards adolescents seeking SRH services; and community perceptions and readiness to accept AFRHS. The findings showed that both socio-cultural and health facility factors influence utilisation of SRH services. Many of these factors stem from the moral framework encapsulated in socio-cultural norms and values related to the sexual health of adolescents, and health care providers’ poor value clarification. This study provides an empirical understanding of the reasons and factors associated with SRH service utilisation, which goes much deeper than program provision of AFRHS in Zimbabwe.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".