Framing Contraceptive Use Motivations Among Adolescents and Young Adults Living in Informal Settlements in Kira Municipality, Wakiso District, Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The use of contraceptives among adolescents and young adults is one of the most cost-effective strategies to address many sexual and reproductive health (SRH) challenges, including unintended pregnancies, early marriages, and sexually transmitted infections. Despite a high burden of SRH challenges, uptake and unmet needs of modern contraceptives remain low in Uganda, especially among adolescents and young adults in informal settlement settings. This study aimed to explore the motivations of adolescents and young people to use modern contraceptives (or not). Methods: We analysed qualitative data from eight focus group discussions with 88 adolescents and young people aged 18–24 years residing in informal settlements of urban communities in Kira Municipality of Wakiso district, Uganda. Results: Motivations for use (or not) of modern contraceptives were framed by two interrelated constructs, sources of information on contraception and the unacceptable use of contraceptives among adolescents widespread in the community. These two, in turn, formed the scope of knowledge upon which adolescents and young people based their decision on whether or not to access and use modern contraceptives. Conclusion: To be more effective, sexual and reproductive health programs and interventions that aim to motivate the use of modern contraceptives among adolescents and young people in informal settings should be more comprehensive and focused on alleviating individual, health systems, social, religious factors that reinforce negative health-seeking behaviours towards contraceptive use. In addition, there is a need to support adolescents and young people with socio-economic empowering strategies that equip them with sufficient resources to choose contraceptives of their choice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".