Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38321420›Full record

ArticleBMC women's health2024

Just in case: undergraduate students identifying and mitigating barriers to their sexual and reproductive health needs.

Rachel Olson, Jonathan Lehman, Angie Mejia, Rachael Ojeikhodion, Kristin Osiecki, Emily Kathambi, Silas Swarnakanth Kati, Anita Randolph

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rachel OlsonCenter for Learning Innovation, University of Minnesota Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Jonathan LehmanCommunity Engagement and Education (CEEd) Hub, Masonic Institute for the Developing Brain (MIDB), University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Angie MejiaCommunity Engagement and Education (CEEd) Hub, Masonic Institute for the Developing Brain (MIDB), University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA. amejiame@umn.edu.
Rachael OjeikhodionCenter for Learning Innovation, University of Minnesota Rochester, Rochester, MN, USA.
Kristin OsieckiCenter for Health Equity, Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Emily KathambiUniversity of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Silas Swarnakanth KatiUniversity of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Anita RandolphCommunity Engagement and Education (CEEd) Hub, Masonic Institute for the Developing Brain (MIDB), University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany U.S. colleges and universities offer access to a healthcare center that provides sexual and reproductive health (SRH) resources, services, and products. The importance of health centers in college and university settings in reducing sexual health disparities in student populations cannot be stressed enough. This article evaluates a student-led, mutual-aid, grassroots health promotion strategy for students with limited access to healthcare services, supplies, and tools via an anonymous and discrete distribution of SRH resources without charge.

methodsIn partnership with faculty, undergraduate students worked to address their school's unmet SRH needs by increasing on-campus access to comprehensive, evidence-based, and sex-positive resources. Referred to as Just in Case, this student-led, grassroots health promotion program provided students with supply kits containing contraceptives, sexual health wellness products, basic hygiene supplies, and education materials. Students were surveyed in a pre- (n = 95) post- (n = 73) pilot study to identify contraception acquisition barriers, discern perceptions of on-campus SRH resources, and elucidate trends in this program's use and impact. Chi-square tests of independence were used to compare survey group responses, and association rule mining was employed in tandem to identify SRH items that students requested.

resultsStudents identified cost and privacy as significant barriers to acquiring sexual health products on campus. Of the 182 Just in Case supply kits requested by students during the 2022-2023 academic year, condoms were requested most frequently in 75% of fulfilled kits, while emergency contraception and pregnancy tests were asked most often in 61% of kits. 50% of students reported access to contraceptives on campus before this program's implementation, growing to 75% (p < 0.001) 1 year later post-implementation. Similar jumps were observed for reported access to sexual health education (30 to 73%, p < 0.001) and services (36 to 73%, p < 0.001).

conclusionA student-led SRH supply and resource delivery strategy may immediately reduce SRH inequities and decrease barriers to contraceptive use for students with limited access to on-site SRH product availability.

Indexed as

Reproductive Health ServicesSexual HealthContraceptive AgentsFemaleHumansPilot ProjectsPregnancyReproductive HealthSexual BehaviorStudentsContraceptive AgentsCollege healthSexual and reproductive health (SRH)Sexual health educationSexual health promotionUndergraduate students

Identifiers

PMID38321420
PMCPMC10845645

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.