Self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights for advancing universal health coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHO's normative guidance on self-care interventions for sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) promotes comprehensive, integrated and people-centred approaches to health service delivery. Implementation of self-care interventions within the context of human rights, gender equality, and a life course approach, offers an underused opportunity to improve universal health coverage (UHC) for all. Results from an online global values and preferences survey provided lay persons' and healthcare providers' perspectives on access, acceptability, and implementation considerations. This analysis examines 326 qualitative responses to open-ended questions from healthcare providers (n = 242) and lay persons (n = 70) from 77 countries. Participants were mostly women (66.9%) and were from the Africa (34.5%), America (32.5%), South-East Asia (5.6%), European (19.8%), Eastern Mediterranean (4.8%), and Western Pacific regions (2.8%). Participants perceived multiple benefits of self-care interventions for SRHR, including: reduced exposure to stigma, discrimination and access barriers, increased confidentiality, empowerment, self-confidence, and informed decision-making. Concerns include insufficient knowledge, affordability, and possible side-effects. Implementation considerations highlighted the innovative approaches to linkages with health services. Introduction of self-care interventions is a paradigm shift in health care delivery bridging people and communities through primary health care to reach UHC. Self-care interventions can be leveraged by countries as gateways for reaching more people with quality, accessible and equitable services that is critical for achieving UHC. The survey results underscored the urgent need to reduce stigma and discrimination, increase access to and improve knowledge of self-care interventions for SRHR for laypersons and healthcare providers to advance SRHR.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".