Understanding the contents and gaps in sexual and reproductive health toolkits designed for adolescence and young adults: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.054 | 0.205 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".