Sexual health literacy and education programs for culturally and linguistically diverse young people living in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom: a scoping review of content evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young people from key priority communities, represent an important focus for enhancing sexual and reproductive health (SRH). There is an abundance of literature indicating that sexual health programs designed to improve sexual health literacy (SHL) for young people from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds are often developed using established health behaviour models and community involvement models. However, little evidence exists on the processes or standards used to evaluate program effectiveness or update content to remain relevant and appealing. This scoping review of academic literature, and government and not-for-profit organizations reports in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (countries with similar healthcare systems, immigration patterns and socioeconomic status), was conducted to determine if and how program content was reviewed and evaluated for currency and effectiveness. No academic or grey literature reports were identified that described the assessment of SHL program content or resources targeting young people from CALD backgrounds. Organizations and authors were contacted for further details of program content assessment with little success. This suggests a gap in the literature and lack of program evaluation or processes for updating of program content. This review highlights recommendations regarding advancing future research and enhancing program content evaluation.
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 | 0.014 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".