Colombian adolescents’ perceptions of autonomy and access to sexual and reproductive health services: an ethical analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are conceptual and ethical challenges to defining adolescents’ autonomy to access health care, and these can lead to health care norms and practices that could be maladjusted to the needs and preferences of adolescents. Particularly sensitive is access to sexual and reproductive health care services (SRHS). Yet, while there has been substantial conceptual work to conceptualize autonomy (e.g., as independence), there is a lack of empirical research that documents the perceptions of adolescents regarding on how they access or wish to access health care services. The main objectives of this research were to (a) understand how adolescents in Colombia interpret the concept of “autonomy,” (b) describe how these adolescents articulate their autonomy (i.e., preferences) in accessing SRHS, and (c) analyze the ethical issues emerging from these data. Forty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants aged 14 to 23 years old in the Departments of Antioquia and Valle del Cauca in Colombia. Our study showed that participants’ understanding of autonomy was context-based and highly dependent on personal experiences, and these influenced their choice in how to access SRHS. Seen through the ethical lens of a reproductive justice framework, our results highlight the unequal opportunities for adolescents in terms of autonomy to access SRHS.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".