Mechanisms behind gender transformative approaches targeting adolescent pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: a realist synthesis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adolescent pregnancy is defined as pregnancy at the age of 19 or below. Pregnancy and childbirth complications are the most significant cause of death among 15-19-year-old girls. Several studies have indicated that inequitable gender norms can increase the vulnerability of adolescent girls, including violence exposure, early marriage, and adolescent pregnancy. To address these disparities, gender transformative approaches aim to challenge and transform restrictive gender norms, roles, and relations through targeted interventions, promoting progressive changes. This realist review aims to synthesise existing evidence from a broad range of data sources to understand how, why, for whom, and in what contexts gender transformative approaches succeed in reducing adolescent pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We employ a five-step realist synthesis approach: (1) clarify the scope of review and assessment of published literature, (2) development of initial programme theories, (3) systematic search for evidence, (4) development of refined programme theories, and (5) expert feedback and dissemination of results. This protocol presents the results of the first three steps and provides details of the next steps. We extracted data from 18 studies and outlined eight initial programme theories on how gender transformative approaches targeting adolescent pregnancy work in the first three steps. These steps were guided by experts in the field of sexual and reproductive health, implementation science, and realist methodology. As a next step, we will systematically search evidence from electronic databases and grey literature to identify additional studies eligible to refine the initial programme theories. Finally, we will propose refined programme theories that explain how gender transformative approaches work, why, for whom, and under which circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required because the included studies are published articles and other policy and intervention reports. Key results will be shared with the broader audience via academic papers in open-access journals, conferences, and policy recommendations. The protocol for this realist review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023398293).
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".