ArticleBMJ open2026
Adolescent sexual and reproductive health assessment in clinical practice in India: a qualitative study triangulating clinician practices and young adults' experiences.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo characterise current practices in adolescent sexual and reproductive health (SRH) assessment during routine clinical encounters in a tertiary care setting and to triangulate these findings with young adults' experiences of adolescent healthcare, identifying gaps between recommended assessment approaches and real-world clinical practice.
designQualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews (IDIs) and group discussions with clinicians, followed by a sequential triangulation phase involving IDIs with young adults. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis.
settingA tertiary care hospital in South Karnataka, India.
participants33 clinicians across six departments participated in four IDIs and five group discussions (focus-group or small-group discussions). 10 undergraduate young adults were recruited for IDIs in the triangulation phase. Sampling was guided by the information power principle.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresCurrent patterns and practices of SRH assessment, perceived barriers and challenges and concordance between clinician-reported practices and young adults' experiences of care.
resultsThree domains emerged: current assessment practices, contextual challenges and improvement strategies. SRH assessment was largely symptom-driven and reactive rather than routinely integrated into consultations. Clinicians described practices shaped by sociocultural stigma, parental presence, privacy limitations and medicolegal uncertainty. In response, many relied on informal strategies such as rapport-building, indirect questioning or referral pathways. Triangulation with young adults' experiences confirmed the reactive nature of SRH enquiry, but revealed critical mismatches: young adults perceived consent processes as opaque, investigations as unexplained and confidentiality as inconsistently protected, contrasting with clinician intentions to be protective and pragmatic.
conclusionsAdolescent SRH assessment in tertiary care settings remains constrained by sociocultural, infrastructural and communication barriers. Clinicians often compensate through informal practices that lack standardised protocols. Integrating adolescent-focused communication training, standardised assessment approaches and supportive system-level and community interventions may strengthen disclosure and improve adolescent-centred SRH care. By triangulating provider and patient perspectives, this study reveals a systematic gap between clinician adaptive strategies, constructed as protective and adolescents' experiences as opaque, non-participatory care offering contextually grounded implications for strengthening adolescent-centred SRH services in comparable LMIC settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable (Qualitative Study).
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.