Country-level gender equality and adolescent contraceptive use in Europe, Canada and Israel: Findings from the HBSC study in 33 countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT. Cross-national variation in adolescent contraceptive use is widely documented, but social explanations for this variation are scarce. Based on the assumption that societal gender equality relates to the cultural acceptability of contraceptive use and increases (young) women’s ability to actively participate in decision-making regarding contraception, this study examined whether adolescent contraceptive use was more prevalent in countries with higher levels of gender equality. METHODS. Nationally representative data from 33 countries that participated in the 2013/14 Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study (N = 8,181) were combined with a country-level measure of gender equality (i.e., the Global Gender Gap Index; GGGI). HBSC respondents (aged 14-16 years) self-reported contraceptive use (condom and contraceptive pill) at last sexual intercourse. Multinominal logistic multilevel regression analyses were run separately by sex to obtain associations between gender equality and contraceptive use as reported by boys and girls. RESULTS. Gender equality related positively to condom use, contraceptive pill use, and dual use (i.e., of condom and contraceptive pill) among boys as well as girls, with ORs ranging from 1.4 (condom use among boys) to 9.6 (birth control pill use among girls). Associations with contraceptive pill and dual use remained significant when controlling for national wealth and income inequality. Overall, associations were stronger for girls, compared to boys. CONCLUSIONS. Macro-level gender equality relates to contraceptive use among adolescent boys and girls. More research is needed to identify causal pathways and potential mechanisms through which gender equality and adolescent contraceptive use may affect one another.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".