Addressing Gaps in Ontario’s Sexual Health Education: Supporting Healthy Sexual Lives in Young Adults with Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how Ontario’s Health and Physical Education curriculum addresses the needs of young adults with disabilities. A total of 54 individuals aged 18–35 years old with developmental, learning, or physical disabilities who had completed secondary school in Ontario participated in a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey. Participants were recruited through disability-focused community networks and a university psychology participant pool. They completed the Sex Education subscale of the Sexual Knowledge, Experience, Feelings and Needs Scale, a 35-item sexual knowledge questionnaire, and open-ended questions. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests; qualitative responses were examined using thematic analysis. Participants reported limited factual knowledge, minimal classroom representation, and heavy reliance on independent learning. Barriers included inaccessible materials, teacher discomfort, and the absence of disability narratives in sexuality units. Findings point to three priorities: revising curriculum content, expanding educator training, and creating disability-affirming resources. These measures will help ensure comprehensive and rights-based sexuality education that supports the autonomy and well-being of students with disabilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".