Clinic Staff Perceptions of Implementing a Sexual and Reproductive Health Entertainment-Education Program for Young Women of Color
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Entertainment-education interventions remain underutilized in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) despite evidence that they can be effective and place a low burden on staff. This study explores perceived facilitators and barriers for implementing an entertainment-education video intervention for 18- to 19-year-old African American and Latina women in SRH clinics. Design: Cross-sectional online survey (n=100) and telephone interviews (n=19) were completed May through August 2018. Setting: SRH clinics were located across 32 US states and 1 Canadian province. Participants: SRH clinic staff were diverse in type of clinic, role, and geography and were recruited using purposive sampling. Methods: Bivariate analyses were used for quantitative data, and thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. Main Outcome Measures: Intervention acceptability, perceived feasibility, and likely uptake were assessed using agreement statements (survey) and open-ended questions (interviews and survey). Results: Interviewed clinic staff described the intervention as engaging, educational, and promising for improving client SRH knowledge and behaviors. Nearly all (95%) survey respondents said showing the video would be feasible. Most (56%) indicated likely uptake, which was significantly associated with perceived feasibility (P=.000), acceptability (P≤.001), and working at a public health clinic (P=.023). Implementation barriers included the video's potential relevance to only certain clients and the need for additional information or staff and/or management buy-in. Conclusions: This is the first study to assess perceived implementation facilitators and barriers of an entertainment-education video intervention among SRH clinic staff. The intervention was well received, with certain barriers potentially alleviated by offering information about entertainment-education and multiple implementation methods. These findings can help improve dissemination efforts for video-based entertainment-education interventions in clinics serving young women of color.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".