MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210619156 · doi:10.1186/s12978-021-01303-8

A comparative human rights analysis of laws and policies for adolescent contraception in Uganda and Kenya

2022· article· en· W4210619156 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVlaamse Interuniversitaire RaadUniversity of TorontoVLIRUOSUniversiteit Utrecht
KeywordsKenyaAccountabilityHuman rightsFamily planningPopulationMedicineHealth policyAdolescent healthEconomic growthPublic healthPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthLawNursingEconomicsResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Improving access to adolescent contraception information and services is essential to reduce unplanned adolescent pregnancies and maternal mortality in Uganda and Kenya, and attain the SDGs on health and gender equality. This research studies to what degree national laws and policies for adolescent contraception in Uganda and Kenya are consistent with WHO standards and human rights law. METHODS: This is a comparative content analysis of law and policy documents in force between 2010 and 2018 governing adolescent (age 10-19 years) contraception. Between and within country differences were analysed using WHO's guidelines "Ensuring human rights in the provision of contraceptive information and services". RESULTS: Of the 93 laws and policies screened, 26 documents were included (13 policies in Uganda, 13 policies in Kenya). Ugandan policies include a median of 1 WHO recommendation for adolescent contraception per policy (range 0-4) that most frequently concerns contraception accessibility. Ugandan policies have 6/9 WHO recommendations (14/24 sub-recommendations) and miss entirely WHO's recommendations for adolescent contraception availability, quality, and accountability. On the other hand, most Kenyan policies consistently address multiple WHO recommendations (median 2 recommendations/policy, range 0-6), most frequently for contraception availability and accessibility for adolescents. Kenyan policies cover 8/9 WHO recommendations (16/24 sub-recommendations) except for accountability. CONCLUSIONS: The current policy landscapes for adolescent contraception in Uganda and Kenya include important references to human rights and evidence-based practice (in WHO's recommendations); however, there is still room for improvement. Aligning national laws and policies with WHO's recommendations on contraceptive information and services for adolescents may support interventions to improve health outcomes, provided these frameworks are effectively implemented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.338 · 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