Impact of a capacity-building intervention on views and perceptions of healthcare providers towards the provision of adolescent sexual and reproductive health services in southeast Nigeria: a cross-sectional qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Negative views of healthcare providers towards adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services deter adolescents from seeking vital SRH services. This paper assessed the impact of an intervention on the views and perceptions of healthcare providers towards the provision of adolescent SRH services. DESIGN AND SETTING: A descriptive, cross-sectional, qualitative study was conducted between 14 October and 19 November 2021 in six local government areas (LGAs) in Ebonyi state, southeast Nigeria, after the implementation of an intervention comprising of training and supportive supervision. PARTICIPANTS AND DATA COLLECTION: Data were collected through: (1) two in-depth interviews (IDIs) with LGA healthcare managers; (2) six IDIs with LGA adolescent health programme managers; (3) two focus group discussions (FGDs) with 15 primary healthcare facility managers; (4) two FGDs with 20 patent medicine vendors and (5) two FGDs with 17 community health volunteers. A total of six FGDs were held with 52 healthcare providers. The interviews were conducted using pretested interview guides. Transcripts were coded in NVivo (V.12) and themes were identified through inductive analysis. RESULTS: As a result of the intervention, most healthcare providers started recognising the rights of adolescents to obtain contraceptive services and no longer deny them access to contraceptive services. The providers also became friendlier and were no longer harsh in their interactions with adolescents. There were some unique findings relative to whether the providers were formal or informal healthcare providers. It was found that the informal healthcare providers were bolder and more comfortable delivering SRH services to adolescents and reported improved patronage by the adolescents. The formal healthcare providers made their facilities more conducive for adolescents by creating safe spaces and introducing extracurricular activities. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the importance of the constant capacity building of both formal and informal healthcare providers, which can address healthcare providers' biases, views and perceptions of delivering SRH services to adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".