Using Vignettes to Gain Insights Into Social Norms Related to Voluntary Family Planning and Gender-Based Violence in South Sudan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social norms are the shared expectations about behaviors that are held within collective groups. These differ from attitudes and beliefs, which are individually held. In South Sudan, social norms can affect the use of voluntary family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH); some of these norms even present risks for women seeking FP/RH care and their FP/RH providers. This cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted in 5 counties in South Sudan used vignettes as a qualitative method to explore social norms related to FP/RH and decisions related to contraceptive use and gender-based violence. Participants were asked to respond to vignettes about a fictional couple during various life stages of care-seeking. Vignettes allow respondents to share their opinions and feelings without directly speaking about their own experiences. Respondents included community members, FP/RH providers, and key influencers (e.g., religious leaders, traditional leaders, elders). The study identified restrictive social norms related to FP/RH, including entrenched, dominant gender roles (i.e., requiring male consent to use contraceptives) and risk for the woman and her provider if she accesses FP/RH services. Of note, supportive social norms are gaining acceptance regarding women's voice and agency; it was found that some women can negotiate their reproductive choice with their partners and participate in planning their families, which has not always been a widely accepted norm. The use of vignettes can lead to a better understanding of the challenges and provide insights on effective implementation approaches. It is essential for programs working to promote the use of FP/RH services in South Sudan to consider the challenges presented by social norms. Findings from this study were shared with stakeholders and communities to codesign interventions aimed at increasing the use of FP/RH services. Additionally, the dialogue stimulated by this study should lead to an organic transformation toward supportive social norms through collective agency.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".