Gender, Power, and Health: Measuring and Assessing Sexual Relationship Power Equity Among Young Sub-Saharan African Women and Men, a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender inequity, including low sexual relationship power (SRP), is an important determinant of intimate partner violence (IPV) and negative sexual, reproductive, and mental health. Different versions of the Sexual Relationship Power Scale (SRPS) are commonly used within youth studies to examine how gender inequities, including controlling behaviors, in heterosexual relationships impact the lives of young people in sub-Saharan Africa. This review aims to (1) describe definitions and measures of SRP within sub-Saharan African youth studies and (2) review and summarize associations between SRP equity, IPV, and sexual, reproductive, and mental health. After searching Pubmed, Ovid Med, Psych info, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and relevant research forums, 304 papers were identified, of which 29 papers based on 15 distinct studies (published 2004–2019) met our criteria for being youth-specific, conducted in sub-Saharan Africa, and including a quantitative measure of SRP. Details of each SRPS are described, including any adaptations and psychometric properties, as well as associations with IPV, sexual, reproductive, and mental health behaviors and outcomes. Results indicate that there are variations to the SRPS, and a paucity of evidence has detailed the psychometric properties of such measures within sub-Saharan African youth studies. Measures of SRP equity are associated with experiences (among women) and perpetration of (among men) IPV as numerous pathways to HIV risk; however, the evidence remains mixed. In order to address overlapping epidemics of violence against women and HIV, efforts are needed to ensure that measures, including the SRPS, are valid and reliable among highly affected populations.
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 | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".