Parent-Adolescent Communication on Sexual and Reproductive Health Among Indigenous Peoples: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators in the Latin American Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parent-adolescent communication on sexual reproductive health (SRH) is crucial in addressing adolescents’ needs and mitigating risks, such as early pregnancies. However, studies mapping this evidence within Indigenous Peoples in Latin American countries remain scarce. This scoping review examines the barriers and facilitators of parent-adolescent SRH communication among Indigenous Peoples in the Americas. This review follows the six-stage Arksey and O’Malley framework, the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual, and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. A keyword-based search across seven electronic databases was conducted for publications in Spanish and English from January 2000 to August 2024. Two reviewers screened and extracted data, using a Socio-Ecological Framework to synthesize the data and explore how individual, interpersonal, and community-level factors influence communication. Fifteen articles were included from an initial 1,087, with most studies conducted in Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru. Key barriers included parents’ limited education and knowledge due to their upbringings and low educational attainment, fear, shame, societal taboos, and stigma, especially around contraceptives and sexual activity. Traditional gender roles, changes in family structures, and intergenerational shifts compounded these barriers. Facilitators included leveraging parents’ experiences to strengthen emotional bonds and enhance communication. Other facilitators include same-sex conversations, particularly with mothers, and the evolving gender roles that empower female adolescents and women to access SRH information and services. This review highlights the SRH communication challenges Indigenous Peoples in the Americas face and identifies opportunities to improve these discussions. Future research should focus on underexplored content of conversations, underrepresented countries, and explore how economic, social, cultural, and policy factors influence parent-adolescent SRH communication.
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 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".