Considering Culture and Countering Mistrust: Organisation Perspectives for Adapting Comprehensive Sexuality Education in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) is heralded as an effective solution to reduce acute sexual and reproductive health (SRH) issues, particularly for young people. In Ghana, from 2019 to 2020, a co-ordinated campaign against implementing revisions to the CSE curriculum by national and international parties generated a polarising debate resulting in government pull-back from actioning the revisions. Whilst mainstream reporting predominantly focuses on political voices that either promote or discredit the CSE curriculum, formally documented perspectives of those working within service delivery are limited in Ghana. Methods To address this gap, in February 2020, an exploratory qualitative study was conducted using 16 key-informant semistructured interviews with practitioners from organisations delivering SRH in Accra, Ghana, to answer the question: In what ways might CSE be adapted to enhance SRH education delivery for young people in Ghana? Participants were asked their perspectives on the barriers and enablers of CSE implementation in Ghana. Results Utilising a rights-based approach as a theoretical frame for analysis, a hybrid thematic analysis approach revealed three overarching themes: (1) “It’s not anything strange”: The need to normalise young people’s sexual wellness; (2) cultural considerations and countering mistrust; and (3) suggested adaptations. Conclusions and Policy Implications Key informants described seeing the need for CSE in Ghana alongside cultural resistance to content within the curriculum. They called for CSE implementations to consider engaging multiple stakeholders in training to develop content clarity and suggested pathways for incremental delivery and adaptations at government and community levels to continue addressing issues of sexual wellness for the country’s growing youth population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".