Strategies Used by Adolescents to Curb Adolescent Pregnancy and Abortion: An Integrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In spite growing recent attention on adolescent sexual and reproductive health (ASRH), there is persistently high prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and abortion (ADOPA) & related consequences. Thus, this integrative literature review on “Strategies used by Adolescents to curb adolescent pregnancy and abortion” from 2000-2020. The general objective was to assess existing strategies used by Adolescents (ADOs) to curb ADOPA with the purpose of creating a better understanding it. Materials and Methods: An integrative review was carried out using the theoretical model Toronto and Remington (2020). The review question was formulated, 75 included studies sourced from 9 data bases & others were systematically selected, reviewed guided by PRISMA, & their quality appraised by best fit standard tools. An inductive thematic analysis with mixed-methods synthesis was then done. Findings: As key results, 65.3% (49) of studies were primary empirical & 34.7% (26) systematic review. Based on review questions, two main strategies were identified: research & outreach programs. Research implementation strategic component (IMSTRATCOM) was mainly Sexual and reproductive education (SRE). Six major strategies of outreach programs were identified constituting 35 specific programs. Most were complementary & multifaceted in their IMSTRATCOM. They include with components (in bracket) Sex & STIs/HIV Education (SRE); Protocols for Health Clinic Appointments & Supportive Activities (Curriculum development (CUD), SRE, Case management, peer educator training, employment & leadership, Collaboration, increasing access to RH services); Service Learning (CUD, SRE, peer monitoring, social worker supervision, Field work); Healing & Restauration (SRE, Coaching & resource referral, group therapy & Parent participation); Collaborative approach (CSE, community support & engagement, Increasing access to RH services); and Child Development & Aid/Motivation (cash transfers, school uniforms & contraception provision, paid employment, medical care, services to parents & community). Limitations of research & outreach programs were similar & include methodology problems; no stratification of ADOs in intervention & results; mostly late ADOs & females involved. Strategies exist that can successfully curb ADOPA. However, variability in study populations, interventions & outcomes, & paucity of studies for comparison renders difficult reliable conclusion on most effective strategy. Implications to Theory, Practice and Policy: High-quality research with their evaluation considering multicomponent be done; and permanent institutions for support of ASRH projects established.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".