Predictors of Adolescent Parent Communication and Safe Sexual Behaviour among In-School Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents in communicating about their sexual and reproductive health (SRH) issues are faced with the obstacles created by expected social norms and taboos related to sexuality and gender. This study aims to determine the relationship between adolescent-parent communication and its relationship with safe sex behaviour among adolescents. The study was a descriptive cross-sectional. Data was collected from 400 adolescents in Ife-East local government using a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire. We used a multistage sampling technique to select the required study subjects. We carried out simple frequencies and chi-square. Fifty –five percent (55.3%) of the respondents were females, while 44.8% are males. The mean age (±SD) of the participants was 15.50 ±1.55years. Of the respondents, only 37% had good knowledge of sexual and reproductive health issues, while 63% had poor knowledge of sexual and reproductive health issues. The predictors of adolescent parent communication among respondents are private schools (OR=2.546, P = 0.005, CI=1.327-4.885), Female sex (OR=12.128, P<0.001, CI=11.590 – 25.534), family size (OR=14.772, P= 0.003, CI=13.037 –20.015) and good knowledge of sexual and reproductive health issues (OR=19.521, P= 0.007, CI=19.521 –29.078). There is a statistically significant relationship between adolescent parent communication and safe sexual behaviour (X²=152.998, P <0.001, df = 1). The findings of our study revealed that adolescents were not communicating much with parents about sexual and reproductive health issues; and that there is an association between adolescent parent communication and safe sexual behaviour.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".