Sexual and Reproductive Health Service Provision to Adolescents in Edmonton: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Adolescents’ and Service Providers’ Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of adolescent sexual reproductive health (SRH) services is to provide information, education and healthcare to promote safe health practices and protect adolescents from negative health outcomes; however, access to timely, effective, and affordable SRH services by adolescents in Edmonton, Canada remains relatively unknown. Our study sought to understand the perspectives and experiences of adolescent girls and service providers in relation to availability, accessibility, and quality of SRH services available in Edmonton. The study objectives were to explore SRH services adolescents seek, uncover barriers in accessing SRH services and identify areas to improve accessibility. Qualitative description design was employed to conduct this study. Five service providers specializing in SRH, and eight females (ages 17–20 years) that access SRH services were recruited from the Alberta Health Services Birth Control Centre (BCC). Semi-structured interviews took place via Zoom. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVIVO software. Findings consisted of four primary themes: (1) views and current SRH practices; (2) barriers to accessibility; (3) the effects of COVID-19 on accessibility; (4) identified gaps in SRH care. The findings from our study support the development of knowledge translation strategies and make recommendations to improve the present quality of SRH services in Edmonton.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".