Promoting equity in adolescent health in Latin America: designing a comprehensive Sex education program using Intervention Mapping. A mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Implementing sex education programs during adolescence is crucial for addressing the risks associated with sexuality. However, some of these interventions lack proper incorporation of a gender perspective and maintain a heteronormative and biologically-focused approach, potentially resulting in inequitable outcomes for adolescents. In response, comprehensive sex education is most effective due to its multidimensional view of sexuality. However, integrating a comprehensive perspective on sexuality and a gender lens that contributes to adolescent health equity presents challenges, especially in low and middle-income countries. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive and gender-transformative sex education program for adolescents in a middle-income country of Latin America, utilizing the Intervention Mapping Approach. Methods This exploratory sequential mixed-method study comprised two phases. In the first phase, a literature review, nine focus groups with high school students, and 14 interviews with school professionals were conducted to inform program design. Subsequently, the program underwent validation through expert judgment. In the second phase—as part of program development—a preliminary evaluation was conducted by implementing the program in two high schools with 30 students from public high schools, who were administered a pre-post ad hoc survey. Results A comprehensive and gender-transformative sex education program was designed based on literature review findings and input from students and school workers. The ad hoc survey revealed a statistically significant increase in protective skills in sexuality ( W = 59, p = .01) among all participants. Discussion Designing a sex education intervention through Intervention Mapping allowed for the integration of evidence and the needs of the target population. The results of the preliminary evaluation suggest the potential of the developed program to enhance protective skills in sexuality and promote health equity through gender-equitable outcomes in adolescent sex education.
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 | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".