MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087681081 · doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01464-w

Effective educational interventions for the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights for school-age children in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol

2020· review· en· W3087681081 on OpenAlexafffund
Arone Wondwossen Fantaye, Amos Buh, Dina Idriss-Wheeler, Karine Fournier, Sanni Yaya

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsMedicineLow and middle income countriesReproductive healthPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Promotion (chess)Sexual and reproductive health and rightsHealth promotionLow incomeDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthGerontologyReproductive rightsFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingEconomic growthPublic healthSocioeconomicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Biological changes underlying the sexual and reproductive maturation of school-age children are linked with various sexual and reproductive health and rights risks. SRHR risks are predictors of poor SRHR outcomes, such as poor knowledge of sexually transmitted diseases and early sexual initiation occurring predominantly among school-age children. The aim of this proposed review, therefore, is to identify educational interventions that have proven to be effective in promoting or supporting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of school-aged children in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: A systematic review of studies on the strategies promoting the SRHR of school-aged children shall be conducted. Electronic searches will be conducted from January 2000 onwards on the following databases: MEDLINE(R) ALL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), ERIC (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid), Education Source (EBSCOHost), Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), SciELO Citation Index (Clarivate Analytics), Global Health (Ovid), and Sociological Abstract (Proquest). Studies eligible for inclusion will be randomized control trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, quasi-experimental studies (e.g., pre-post tests), and observational studies (cross-sectional and cohort studies). Peer-reviewed studies published in English and/or French and involving school-aged children 5-10 years old will be included. The primary outcomes of interest will include knowledge, awareness, or attitudes about SRHR topics. The secondary outcomes of interest will include sexual and reproductive behaviors. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, abstract data, and full-text articles, and the methodological quality of each study will be appraised using JBI critical appraisal tools. A narrative synthesis of extracted data will be conducted. DISCUSSION: The systematic review will synthesize the evidence on existing educational interventions targeting SRHR outcomes of school-aged children in low- and middle-income countries. It will identify which interventions have proven to be effective, and which interventions have not proven to be effective in promoting or supporting their SRHR. Review findings will provide a useful reference for policy-makers, program developers, global health leaders, and decision makers who wish to support the SRHR of school-age children. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020173158).

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.015
Bibliometrics0.0210.019
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.006

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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.518
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207