Understanding the sexual and reproductive health needs of immigrant adolescents in Canada: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Literature suggests that immigrant adolescents receive limited sexual and reproductive health (SRH) education and rarely utilize SRH services in Canada. This study sought to explore the SRH information needs of immigrant adolescents in the province of Alberta. Methods: A qualitative descriptive methodology was undertaken to conduct 21 individual interviews with immigrant adolescents in Alberta. Results: A total of four themes emerged from the interviews: (1) Barriers to SRH; (2) needs of adolescents regarding SRH; (3) sources of knowledge; and (4) strategies to improve SRH. Our findings document the conflicting needs and preferences between adolescents and their parents regarding access to SRH resources and services. Discussion: Adolescents often felt unprepared to deal with their SRH issues due to socio-cultural barriers and conflicts with their parents' conservative attitude toward SRH concerns. Structural barriers to accessing SRH resources and services were also reported, including the location and cost of services. As a result, the majority of adolescents relied on digital methods to receive SRH information. Conclusion: This study highlights that future research and SRH service provider efforts need to remain cognizant of the positionality of immigrant adolescents and explore innovative ways to deliver SRH resources and services that meet their unique needs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".