MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Girl2Girl: How to develop a salient pregnancy prevention program for cisgender sexual minority adolescent girls

2020· article· en· W3092070601 on OpenAlexaff
Michele L. Ybarra, Myeshia N. Price, Tonya L. Prescott, Carol Goodenow, Elizabeth Saewyc, Margaret Rosario

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescence · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
KeywordsLesbianSexual minorityPsychologyEthnic groupIntervention (counseling)Salience (neuroscience)Focus groupTeen pregnancyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyMedicinePopulationPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although sexual minority girls are more likely than heterosexual girls to be pregnant during adolescence, programs tailored to their needs are non-existent. Here we describe the iterative development of Girl2Girl, a text messaging-based pregnancy prevention program for cisgender lesbian, gay, bisexual and other sexual minority (LGB+) girls across the United States. METHODS: Four activities are described: 1) 8 online focus groups to gain feedback about intended program components (n = 160), 2) writing the intervention content, 3) 4 online Content Advisory Teams that reviewed and provided feedback on the salience of drafted intervention content (n = 82), and 4) a beta test to confirm program functionality, the feasibility of assessments, and the enrollment protocol (n = 27). Participants were 14-18-year-old cisgender LGB+ girls recruited nationally on social media. Across study activities, between 52% and 70% of participants were 14-16 years of age, 10-22% were Hispanic ethnicity, and 30-44% were minority race. RESULTS: Focus group participants were positive about receiving text messages about sexual health, although privacy was of concern. Thus, better safeguards were built into the enrollment process. Teens in the Content Advisory Teams found the content to be approachable and compelling, although many wanted more gender-inclusive messaging. Messages were updated to not assume people with penises were boys. Between 71 and 86% of participants in the beta test provided weekly feedback, most of which was positive; no one withdrew during the seven-week study period. CONCLUSIONS: This careful step-by-step iterative approach appears to have resulted in a high level of intervention feasibility and acceptability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AdolescenceSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207