Community-Based Sexual and Reproductive Health Promotion and Services for First Nations People in Urban Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Little is known about sexual and reproductive health (SRH) access and health promotion for First Nations peoples in Australia. This study aimed to better understand community preferences, knowledge and access to contraception and SRH services, and use this understanding to make recommendations which support approaches led by local Aboriginal community-controlled health organisations (ACCHOs). METHODS: Qualitative First Nations-led yarning circles were conducted with 55 community members and health service providers using and/or working at ACCHOs in urban South East Queensland. Cultural protocols ensured women's and men's interviews were separately collected and analysed. Thematic analysis was conducted by multiple coders, privileging interpretations by First Nations researchers. RESULTS: Family, kin and friends were described as key knowledge holders and ACCHOs as knowledge spaces for sharing information about maintaining positive SRH and wellbeing for First Nations people. Interviewees wanted accurate and timely information in an accessible, culturally appropriate way. Making informed choices about family planning was described as an important process of agency and self-determination for First Nations people, and contextualized within broader aspirations for growing strong families and healthy relationships. CONCLUSION: Understanding SRH through the concept of "knowledge spaces" and "knowledge holders" highlights the collective importance of community relationality to support individual agency and informed SRH decision-making. ACCHOs appear to be acceptable knowledge spaces for SRH information; and evidence-based recommendations may increase their reach. Health services should consider upskilling community SRH knowledge holders to share consistent, accurate and accessible SRH information.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".