Sexual and reproductive health interventions geared toward adolescent males: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Male adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) interventions are rare worldwide. The high prevalence of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancies among female and male adolescents worldwide highlights the need for comprehensive interventions that include both genders in the educational process. OBJECTIVE: Our main focus is studying and analysing male-focused SRH interventions globally to include males in evidence-based interventions that improve SRH of adolescent males. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: This Review was conducted using the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. The following databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycInfo. INCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) No time or date limits; 2)all types of studies; 3)SRH campaign; 4)males; 5)10 to 19 years. SAMPLE: Five thousand and sixty-eight articles were identified and 166 peer-reviewed articles met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Family planning was identified as the primary domain covered for adolescents. While interactive activities was the most common method used to deliver information to adolescents about sexual health. SRH interventions for males were most prevalent in America. While in the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), no male interventions were found in our review. CONCLUSION: This scoping review emphasizes the need to include adolescent males in sexual and reproductive health interventions, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the EMR. Policymakers should develop comprehensive programs that address male-specific needs, improve training for intervention providers, and enhance reporting processes to identify gaps and barriers to male inclusion. IMPLICATION: Future research should be directed toward the obstacles that prevent SRH interventions targeting males from being carried out.
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 | 0.013 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".