Facilitating parent-child sexual health communication: Recommendations from the New Brunswick “Ask Me Anything” survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New Brunswick has high rates of sexually transmitted infections and unplanned pregnancies among youth, indicative of high-risk sexual behaviours. Positive parent-child sexual health communication can help youth develop healthy sexual practices, though a lack of available resources to support caregivers in their role as sexual health educators for their children has been reported. This study investigated the current sexual health education practices and needs of parents, step-parents, and guardians to inform the development and/or adaptation of resources to support parents as sexual health educators. Parents, step-parents, and guardians were recruited via email, social media, and poster-based outreach ( N = 5,462). Using the “Ask Me Anything” survey containing 41 items, participants’ demographic characteristics, current sexual health education practices, and sexual health education needs were captured. Descriptive statistics analyzed demographic characteristics and survey variables. Most participants indicated that they were primarily responsible for children’s sexual health education and felt they had sufficient knowledge and comfort to provide it. Parents reported communicating about sexual health a moderate amount with their children and were ambivalent about their satisfaction with existing resources and the sexual health education provided in schools. One-third of participants expressed needing more resources to support school-based education and to identify age-appropriate topics. Understanding parental needs and attitudes regarding sexual health education highlights opportunities for improvement by provincial health authorities and school districts. Recommendations to support the development of resources to address the specific needs of New Brunswick parents and guardians are suggested.
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 | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".