MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200170152 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2021.761394

Does Digital Literacy Empower Adolescent Girls in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W4200170152 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Development and Digital Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsEmpowermentPsychological interventionLiteracySystematic reviewEnablingIntervention (counseling)Digital healthMedicineHealth literacyReproductive healthMedical educationPsychologyMEDLINENursingEnvironmental healthHealth carePopulationPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The vast majority (90%) of the world's adolescents aged 10–19 live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs); and in those resource-limited settings, girls face distinct challenges across multiple health, social, and economic domains. Gender equality and girls' empowerment are key goals in their own right and are central to all other development goals. Digital literacy is a great enabler for the empowerment of young girls. This systematic review aims to assess the range and nature of digital literacy interventions implemented to empower adolescent girls in LMICs and identify evidence about adolescent girls' access and use of digital technologies in LMICs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards for systematic reviews. Two reviewers selected studies, conducted quality assessments, and extracted data by using standard forms. The collected data include the design of the study, type of digital literacy intervention, target audience, intervention received, intervention reach, data analysis, and study outcomes. The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020216756). Results: Thirty-five studies met the eligibility for inclusion and of those, 11 were experimental studies (randomized controlled trial = 6; quasi-experimental = 2; before-after with no control = 3), 11 were cross-sectional/descriptive studies, seven studies used a mixed-method approach, and six were qualitative studies on digital literacy interventions to empower young girls in LMICs. The majority of digital literacy interventions were designed and implemented to improve sexual and reproductive health rights and decision-making of adolescent girls in LMICs ( n = 33). Only three papers reported the use of digital media for health-related information and decision making, while only one reported on educational and social empowerment. Discussion: Our findings suggest that digital literacy interventions such as mobile phones, mobile health tools, media exposure, access to the internet, internet-based educational strategies, social media exposure are effective to empower adolescent girls to access health services and information and also enhance the access to educational resources. However, we found inconclusive evidence on the effectiveness of digital literacy to enhance girls' access to financial services and economic empowerment. More rigorous studies with long-term follow-ups to assess the effectiveness of such interventions to empower adolescent girls in LMICs are urgently needed.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.312 · 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