Experiences of peer educators in a high school sexual and reproductive health peer education programme in Rwanda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To contribute to a reduction in teenage pregnancy among in-school adolescents in Rwanda, a sexual and reproductive health peer education programme (SRHPEP) was developed and implemented. Reflecting on the unique characteristics of this newly implemented programme, and understanding peer educators’ (PEs) and facilitators’ perspectives, can provide insights into the programme’s effectiveness and feedback to improve the programme in the future. This study explored the experiences of being a PE in the SRHPEP from the perspectives of PEs and facilitators. Design: Qualitative exploratory design. Setting: Data collection took placed in three public high schools in Rwanda. Method: Three focus group discussions (FGDs) with 22 PEs and 5 in-depth interviews with facilitators were conducted. Results: Thematic analysis identified the benefits of being a PE, including increased competence, enhanced relationships and an improved society’s understanding of sexual and reproductive health (SRH). PEs faced challenges, however, including bullying, limited resources and time constraints. A support system (comprising PEs themselves, facilitators and school leadership) and refresher training made being a PE easier. Study participants suggested allocating enough time, training larger numbers of PEs and the provision of contextually relevant educational materials to improve the programme. Conclusion: Findings from this study can be used to guide the development of future ways of strengthening the SRHPEP in schools. They can also help to ensure that PEs are adequately supported in their roles and the needs of the students are met.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".