Condom use and sexual health among Canadian Aboriginal Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Aboriginal youth are more likely to contract a variety of STIs versus other Canadian youth, but the determinants of sexual health in this group are seldom researched. This thesis explores condom use and sexual health among Aboriginal youth and generates recommendations for interventions. Methods Two systematic reviews were conducted examining relationships between different factors and condom use, among indigenous peoples and other diverse groups of youth. Next, qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 Aboriginal youth in British Columbia, Canada. Finally, a secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from a large, representative survey was performed to model relationships between various exposures and ever having sex, having more than one sexual partner, condom use, STI diagnosis and pregnancy involvement. Results The two systematic reviews revealed serious potential bias in studies assessing condom use among indigenous peoples and other diverse groups. Few factors were tested across populations, and little insight was gained as to which factors may differ in their relative importance. In the qualitative study, youth with less stable family relationships and negative life experiences described more risky sexual behaviour than those who did not. Both genders engaged in coercive sexual negotiation, and sometimes young women insisted on condom non-use. Youth also described concurrent/serially monogamous relationships with rapid rates of partner change. These relationships could be 'serious', and 'serious' relationships could denote an acceptable context for pregnancy. In the cross-sectional study, substance use, unwanted sex, and living on reserve increased risk of multiple outcomes. Feeling more connected to family was strongly protective for both genders, and for girls, helping out in the community was also protective. Conclusions Interventions addressing substance use, sexual communication and family relationships may be efficacious for improving sexual health among Aboriginal youth. Building on youth's own ideas about positive lifestyles could be an effective method of tailoring.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".