Interest Holders-Driven Research Priorities in Sexual and Reproductive Health for Migrant and Refugee Adolescents and Young Adults in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Despite sustained global commitment to sexual and reproductive health rights (SRHR), adolescents and young adults from migrant and refugee backgrounds continue to face disproportionate barriers to accessing appropriate services. In Australia’s multicultural landscape, systemic issues such as cultural stigma, limited sexual health literacy, and inadequate culturally responsive services exacerbate these disparities, highlighting the need for an interest-holder-centred and evidence-informed approach to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) research prioritisation. Methods This study employed the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) methodology to collaboratively identify and prioritise key research uncertainties in SRH for migrant and refugee adolescents and young adults in Australia. Guided by a multidisciplinary steering committee, the process encompassed five structured stages: partnership formation, literature-based identification of uncertainties, interest holders’ consultation and refinement, an interim prioritisation survey, and a final consensus workshop. A rapid literature review generated 83 research questions across five domains and twelve thematic areas, which were assessed via two rounds of structured online surveys. Participants included youth interest holders (adolescents and young adults aged 18–24 from migrant and refugee backgrounds), alongside diverse professional interest holders from healthcare, academic, governmental, and community sectors. Results A total of 92 participants (31 youth and 61 professionals) completed the initial survey, generating 83 research uncertainties that were refined into 18 indicative questions across five SRH domains. Among youth interest-holders, 74.2% identified as female and 25.8% as male. Professional interest-holders were more gender-diverse, with 49.2% female, 32.8% male, 8.2% transgender, and 9.8% preferring not to disclose. Youth participants predominantly identified psychosocial, community-based, and education-related concerns, while professionals drawn from academic/research (37.7%), health industry organizations (13.1%), healthcare services (44.3%), and NGOs emphasised system-level barriers and challenges in service access. Using median scores, eight questions emerged as shared high priorities across both groups. In the final consensus phase, 11 questions were identified as top priorities, with three receiving high-priority ratings from both youth and professionals. Key areas included male SRH, psychosocial contributors to gender-based violence, culturally tailored education, and community-based maternal health support. Notably, youth participants consistently rated more items as high priority than professionals, reflecting divergent perspectives shaped by lived experience. These results provide an empirically grounded, interest holders-informed SRH research agenda for migrant and refugee youth in Australia. Conclusion This interest-holders driven priority setting initiative highlights the pressing need for tailored SRH research responsive to the lived experiences of adolescent and young adults of migrant and refugee background in Australia. The identified priorities serve as a foundation for future evidence-based interventions and policy development to advance health equity and service inclusivity.
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 | 0.168 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".