Parents’ interest in receiving sexuality education to inform a parent-focused intervention in Medellín, Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has revealed young people’s interest in a sexuality education programme for parents in Colombia, citing parents’ lack of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) knowledge as a barrier to their own learning. Informed by this insight, this study aimed to: 1) assess parents’ interest in sexuality education for discussing SRH with adolescents; 2) explore preferred structures for the delivery of such education; and 3) identify the topics parents believe should be included in such a programme. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 28 parents of adolescents aged 10–19 in Medellín, Colombia. Participants expressed a strong desire for an educational programme that could enhance dialogue with their children about SRH. The preferred format involved initial sessions conducted by professionals such as nurses for parents only, allowing them to ask questions freely, followed by integrated sessions with sons and daughters to promote informed discussion. Two main subjects should be included in such a programme: the biological aspects of SRH (e.g. contraceptives), and relevant social issues (e.g. prevention of gender-based violence). Sexuality education programmes for parents could potentially benefit young people. Further research is needed, however, to explore how using such an approach could bring about improvements in youth SRH outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".