Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28720106›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

Caretaker-adolescent communication on sexual and reproductive health: a cross-sectional study in Unguja-Tanzania Zanzibar.

Saada A Seif, Thecla W Kohi, Candida S Moshiro

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Associations Between Agency and Sexual and Reproductive Health Communication in Early Adolescence: A Cross-cultural, Cross-sectional Study.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Saada A SeifDepartment of Nursing Management, School of Nursing, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P.O. Box 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. salis1969@Hotmail.Com.
Thecla W KohiDepartment of Nursing Management, School of Nursing, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P. O. Box, 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Candida S MoshiroDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public health and Social Sciences, Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences, P. O. Box, 65001, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaretakers/parents/caregivers/guardians play important roles in improving Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) of adolescents. Caretaker-adolescent sexual communication suggested to influence young people's sexual behaviours. Despite this significance, the communication is believed to be low in Unguja due to the increase of risky sexual behaviours among adolescents. This study assessed the pattern of such communication using IMB model as a framework.

methodsThis is a cross-sectional study targeted caretakers of adolescents aged 15-19. One thousand caretakers of adolescents were interviewed using structured questionnaire. Comparison between male and female caretakers on discussing different SRH topics to both sexes of adolescents was made. The mean-score difference of overall communication was examined using Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA). Bivariate correlation and simple path analysis via regression was conducted to determine the association of IMB variables in relation to communication practice.

resultsThis study finds 40.7% of caretakers had ever communicated with their adolescents on SRH matters and 9.2% reported to have had communicated in the past 30 days. The weighted topic measure revealed only 26.5% of caretakers communicated with their adolescents. Both caretakers communicated more with their female adolescents. The communication was more common between same sex and between caretakers and their biological adolescents (p < 0.000). Both male and female caretakers mostly discussed sexual abstinence to female adolescents while to male adolescents, HIV/STIs was mostly discussed by female caretakers and pregnancy by male caretakers. The least discussed topics to both sexes are safer sex and other contraceptives use. The bivariate correlations suggested that IMB constructs were inter-related and associated with communication practice.

conclusionCaretakers-adolescents communication on SRH in Unguja is low and it is not comprehensive. Caretakers fail to communicate with their adolescents on sensitive issues but do so on less sensitive ones. The pattern of communication found to vary across gender of caretaker and that of adolescent and depends on the nature of relationship between caretaker and adolescent. There is gender differences in selecting SRH topics of discussion. Interventions programmes have to include strategies that enhance caretaker's information, motivation and skills so as to improve SRH communication between caretakers and adolescent.

Indexed as

Adolescent BehaviorCommunicationParent-Child RelationsParentsReproductive HealthSexual BehaviorSexual HealthAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth CommunicationHumansAdolescentsCaretakersCommunicationParentsSexual and reproductive healthSexuality

Identifiers

PMID28720106
PMCPMC5516316
OpenAlexW2738587703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.