Young People’s Trust in Digital Sexual Healthcare: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Trust has been identified as a key factor associated with supporting access to sexual health interventions and digital healthcare. We aimed to explore and synthesize factors that may cultivate trust for young people (10-24-year-old) when accessing digital sexual healthcare. Methods: A total of 5950 articles were extracted from 5 databases (Scopus, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL) and independently assessed for relevance by two researchers. Trust descriptions were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach, extracted tabularly and synthesized into themes through conceptual mapping. Results: Thirteen papers between 2011 and 2021 from the United States (n = 5), Australia (n = 3), United Kingdom (n = 2), Canada (n = 2), and Netherlands (n = 1) were reviewed. Young people (n = 462), varying in gender identity and sexuality, were aged between 14 and 29 years old. Four areas cultivating trust in digital sexual healthcare were described: (1) Esthetics, language, tone: Trusted digital sexual healthcare was easy to navigate, had limited sexually explicit content or pop-up ads, was not overly teen-friendly and used a professional tone and language, reflecting communication reportedly expected from healthcare providers. (2) Privacy, anonymity, safety: Safety features that preserved young people's anonymity were important for their trust, particularly amid fear of shame or stigma. (3) Authors' expertise, authenticity, reputation: Personal accounts online which reflected the young person's own lived experience were trusted for topics considered subjective (e.g., dating and relationships). (4) Consistency: Cross-checking personal accounts and scientific information to confirm the consistency of content helped with young people's evaluation of trust. Conclusions: Considering the factors cultivating trust when designing digital sexual health interventions may improve access and use. However, given the nuance in lived experience and needs, young people should be meaningfully engaged in the design of digital sexual health interventions. Particularly as sexual health intervention and resources are increasingly being delivered and accessed online by young people.
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 | 0.017 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".