Participatory Action Research for Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Youth-friendly sexual and reproductive health (SRH) interventions are essential for the health of adolescents (10–19 years). Co-designing is a participatory approach to research, allowing for collaboration with academic and non-academic stakeholders in intervention development. Participatory action research (PAR) involves stakeholders throughout the planning, action, observation, and reflection stages of research. Current knowledge indicates that co-producing SRH interventions with adolescents increases a feeling of ownership, setting the scene for intervention adoption in implementation settings. Objectives: This scoping review aims to understand the extent of adolescents’ participation in PAR steps for co-designed SRH interventions, including the barriers and facilitators in co-designing of SRH intervention, as well as its effectiveness on adolescents’ SRH outcomes. Methods: Database searching of PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and organisational websites was performed, identifying 439 studies. Results: Upon screening, 30 studies (published between 2006–2021) met the inclusion criteria. The synthesis identified that adolescents were involved in the planning and action stages of the interventions, but not in the observation and reflection stages. Although the review identified the barriers and facilitators for co-designing SRF interventions, none of the included studies reported on the effectiveness of co-designing SRH interventions with adolescents; therefore, meta-analysis was not performed. Conclusions: While no specific outcome of the interventions was reported, all papers agreed that adolescent co-designing in ASRH interventions should occur at all stages to increase understanding of local perceptions and develop a successful intervention.
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 | 0.029 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".