MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396871963 · doi:10.1093/sxmrev/qeae032

Understanding the contents and gaps in sexual and reproductive health toolkits designed for adolescence and young adults: a scoping review

2024· review· en· W4396871963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Medicine Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductive healthTransgenderLesbianPsychological interventionHuman sexualityContext (archaeology)MedicinePopulationGerontologyPsychologyFamily medicineNursingGender studiesEnvironmental healthSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Adolescence is a crucial stage of physical and sexual maturation and development and a period in which understanding sexual and reproductive health (SRH) is important. SRH interventions and toolkits provide a range of valuable resources and information to young people, educators, and members of the community on numerous topics, including contraception and puberty. OBJECTIVES: The usefulness and reliability of these available toolkits have not been previously studied, thus limiting our understanding of their appropriateness and contents. Hence, this scoping review aimed to synthesize the available toolkits aimed at the SRH of adolescents and young adults to understand the contents, design, and information gaps. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted of 6 medical databases and 12 gray literature sites. Sixteen toolkits published globally before May 2023 were included in our review. RESULTS: The majority of toolkits (n = 12) contained information related to general SRH knowledge and contraception, whereas only 3 contained information on teenage pregnancy. We found that aiming the toolkits toward educators and health care workers was a favorable design over targeting adolescents and young adults directly and that vulnerable youth-including LGBTQI+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, asexual or allied, intersex, and additional identities) and youth from humanitarian settings-were not well represented. CONCLUSION: We identified key gaps in the inclusion of information in a range of SRH topics, such as LGBTQI+ sexuality, teenage pregnancy, and safe abortion, in the currently available SRH toolkits and their lack of applicability in a global context. Furthermore, we provide recommendations for areas of improvement to encourage adolescents' agency in their SRH education.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.508
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.033 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it