Acceptability and cultural appropriateness of a parenting programme to reduce violence against adolescents in Tanzania delivered at scale: Implications for scale-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although parenting programmes may be effective at reducing violence against children (VAC), there is a limited understanding on how acceptable and appropriate such programmes are among parents/caregivers (‘caregivers’) when delivered at scale. This paper explores the acceptability and cultural appropriateness of a parenting programme for caregivers and their adolescent girls, Parenting for Lifelong Health for Teens (PLH-Teens), which was delivered at scale in rural and semi-urban Tanzania. This paper employed a qualitative research design involving 18 focus group discussions (FGDs) with caregivers (N = 120) and adolescent girls (N = 60). Participants reported that the programme was acceptable, culturally appropriate, and beneficial. The use of participatory approaches and in-person group sessions was appealing to caregivers. However, several challenges hindered consistent engagement. These factors ranged from initial community mistrust about the programme, social norms on parenting, and group interactions to individual-level participant factors, stigma, and feeling of shame for being selected to join a programme. Overall, PLH-Teens programme was perceived as addressing the real parenting needs of caregivers and their adolescents. There is a need to address the challenges families experienced as these could hinder the acceptability, sustainability, and continued scale up of PLH-Teens in future programme delivery.
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 | 0.035 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".