ArticleHealth education research2025
Developing and piloting an intervention to increase adolescent access to sexual and reproductive healthcare: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Health education research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This mixed-methods study describes the development and pilot testing of AccessKCTeen, an intervention to improve sexual and reproductive health (SRH) access for marginalized youth. Community discussions guided development of an intervention featuring SRH outreach events to disseminate information, share resources, and connect teens to care via telemedicine and mobile health clinics. During eight outreach events, we recruited adolescent participants for baseline assessments (demographics, event satisfaction, and trust in the medical profession) and one-month follow-up (trust and SRH utilization). We documented feedback on SRH resources (e.g. condoms), telemedicine, and mobile care with field notes. Among 96 participants (46% Black; 23% Hispanic; 23% gender minority; 50% sexual minority), most were 'very' (76%) or 'somewhat' (9%) satisfied with the event; 15% were 'neutral'. At baseline, trust was moderate (16.4 ± 2.7; scale range 5-25). Many accepted SRH items for future use. Field notes documented adolescent comments regarding telemedicine as safe, private, and convenient, and the mobile clinic as private and trustworthy. At follow-up, 20% obtained healthcare; trust was 17.2 ± 2.8. Our findings indicate that a community-integrated, multi-component intervention is acceptable to adolescents and warrants further evaluation of its impact on SRH outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.