Aboriginal young people’s perspectives and experiences of accessing sexual health services and sex education in Australia: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Aboriginal) young people seek information and access health services for their sexual health needs. This study examined Aboriginal young people's perspectives on sexual health services and sex education in Australia. Overall, 51 Aboriginal people aged 16-26 years were interviewed by peer researchers in Sydney, Australia in 2019-2020. The findings suggest that the internet was used to assess information quickly and confidentially, but Aboriginal young people questioned its reliability and accuracy. Family, Elders and peers were seen as sources of advice because they had real-life experience and highlighted intergenerational learning that occurs in Aboriginal communities. School-based sex education programmes had mixed reviews, with a preference for programmes delivered by external specialists providing anonymity, clear and accurate information about sex and relationships and positive approaches to sex education, including how to gain consent before sex. There was a need identified for school-based programmes to better consider the needs of Aboriginal young people, including those who identified as LGBTQI + . Aboriginal Medical Services were highly valued for providing culturally safe access to services, while sexual health clinics were valued for providing specialised confidential clinical services with low levels of judgement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".