A Participatory Comic Book Workshop to Improve Youth-Friendly Post-Rape Care in a Humanitarian Context in Uganda: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Graphic medicine formats, such as comic books in which health information is presented alongside images, may be a useful learning tool to improve post-rape care and youth-friendly service provision among health care providers in humanitarian contexts. We describe the development and pilot-testing of a workshop using a comic book to improve youth-friendly post-rape care with providers in Bidi Bidi refugee settlement, Uganda. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND PILOTING: We conducted 6 focus groups with refugee young men (n=3) and women (n=3) aged 16-24 years and 28 in-depth individual interviews (refugee youth: n=12; health care providers: n=8; elders: n=8). Findings informed the development of a workshop that included a participatory comic book on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and youth, SGBV stigma, youth-friendly health care, and post-exposure prophylaxis. Comic book illustrations specifically addressed health care confidentiality and examples of being a supportive health care provider. Then, we conducted a 1-day workshop with health care providers (n=20) that included structured activities addressing SGBV impacts and related stigma and included comic book discussions. Open-ended survey data were collected 8 weeks after the workshop to explore health care providers' experiences with the workshop, perceived impact of the intervention on their work, and support required to implement youth-friendly services for SGBV survivors. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic approaches. Open-ended response data indicated that: comic book methods were informative and interactive; health care providers felt more empowered to offer youth-friendly services and spaces; and health care providers want additional SGBV training and institutional support for youth-friendly spaces and community engagement. IMPLICATIONS: A comic book intervention has the potential to meaningfully engage health care providers in humanitarian contexts to provide youth-friendly health care, acquire skills for engaging in SGBV prevention, create youth-friendly clinic spaces, and identify health care and community SGBV prevention 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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".