Prevalence of sexually transmitted infections, and its associated factors among students in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are illnesses mainly spread through unprotected sexual activity. There is a scarcity of aggregate evidence in Ethiopia. The aim of this review was to assess the pooled prevalence of STI, and its associated factors among students in Ethiopia to fill the aforementioned gap. METHODS: We extensively searched the bibliographic databases of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar to obtain eligible studies. Further screening for a reference list of articles was also done. The Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet was used to extract data, and Stata 17 was used for analysis. The PRISMA-guidline and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale were used for quality appraisal. To check heterogeneity, the Higgs I2 and Cochran's Q tests were employed. Sensitivity and subgroup analysis were implemented. To detect publication bias, Egger's test and funnel plots were used. RESULTS: The pooled prevalence of STI among students in Ethiopia was 13.6% with a 95% CI (10.2, 17). Findings from sub group analysis based on student category shows that the pooled prevalence of STI were 14.5% among University students, 14.2% among college students and 10.6% among high school students. Having multiple sexual partners (AOR 3.31; 95% CI: 2.40-4.57), not using condoms during sexual intercourse (AOR 2.56; 95% CI: 1.72-3.81), and having poor knowledge about sexually transmitted infections were 3.08 times (AOR 3.08; 95% CI: 1.84-5.15) significantly associated with STI. CONCLUSION: The pooled prevalence of STIs among students in Ethiopia was high, and factors like having multiple sexual partners, not using condoms during sexual intercourse, and having poor knowledge about sexually transmitted infections were significantly associated with STIs. Hence, reduce STIs among students, strengthening sexual and reproductive health services, raising awareness about transmission and prevention, and promoting consistent condom use through health information dissemination is crucial. Further qualitative studies are suggested to explore the barriers and facilitators of STI prevention.
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 | 0.016 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".