Perspectives from the frontline: Nurses’ experiences of adolescent engagement in sexual and reproductive health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nurses have a critical role to play in the delivery of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services to adolescents and young people. Nurses’ interactions with adolescents and young people can shape sexual and reproductive behaviours and outcomes, including willingness to access and engage with healthcare services. However, little research from low- and middle-income contexts has explored nurses’ firsthand perspectives regarding their relationships with adolescents and young people in the context of SRH service provision, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. Aim: This study explored nurses’ perceptions of working with adolescents and young people as well as how these impressions manifest in one-on-one exchanges between nurses and young patients. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 nurses providing SRH services to adolescents and young people and based at public health facilities in urban, peri-urban and rural areas within a health sub-district of the Eastern Cape province of South Africa. Data were analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Results: While many nurses described the challenges facing adolescents and young people in an empathic way and expressed a desire and willingness to engage with and educate them, some found it ‘difficult to break through’. Nurses linked this difficulty to the shame adolescents and young people feel when discussing SRH concerns, but also to them having ‘attitude’ and ‘not listening’. Findings highlight how while nurses may genuinely care about providing services to their young patients, internal and social biases may impact their motivation and willingness to effectively support adolescents and young people within the context of SRH service provision. To improve patient–provider relations, we suggest a focus on practical and participatory interventions to improve interpersonal dynamics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".