METHODS: Seven databases were searched for eligible articles published in English between 2012 and 2022.
RESULTS: Eighty-five sources were included for analysis. Data were mapped by knowledge topic and population group and charted against four review objectives. Assessment of knowledge was the primary focus in 59% of sources. Two sources used a validated knowledge assessment tool. Knowledge was assessed using self-assessment, a measurement of correctness, or both. Women learnt about SRH through a range of sources, including healthcare providers, peers, family, internet, and school. Enablers and barriers spanned information content, delivery, timing, accessibility, interactions with those providing information, cultural and gendered norms, pre-migration experiences, and functional health literacy. Nine sources reported on interventions to facilitate SRH knowledge.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified topics, population groups, and gaps in assessment of SRH knowledge of women in Australia. Overall, the measurement of women\'s SRH knowledge is largely conducted using unvalidated tools focusing on specific topics. SO WHAT?: It is recommended a validated tool be developed to comprehensively assess the SRH knowledge of women in Australia allowing for intersectional population analysis and exploration of knowledge conceptualisation. This would enable assessment of interventions aiming to improve SRH knowledge thereby facilitating improved health literacy and outcomes.
方法:在2012年至2022年之间,搜索了七个数据库以英文发表的合格文章。
结果:包括85个来源进行分析。数据按知识主题和人口组绘制,并根据四个审查目标绘制图表。在59%的来源中,知识评估是主要重点。两个来源使用了经过验证的知识评估工具。使用自我评估来评估知识,正确性的度量,或者两者兼而有之。妇女通过一系列来源了解了SRH,包括医疗保健提供者,同行,家庭,互联网,和学校。推动者和障碍跨越信息内容,delivery,定时,可访问性,与提供信息的人互动,文化和性别规范,迁移前的经验,和功能健康素养。九个来源报告了促进SRH知识的干预措施。
结论:这篇综述确定了主题,人口群体,以及澳大利亚妇女SRH知识评估的差距。总的来说,对女性SRH知识的测量主要是使用针对特定主题的未经验证的工具进行的。所以呢?:建议开发一种经过验证的工具,以全面评估澳大利亚妇女的SRH知识,从而进行交叉人口分析和知识概念化的探索。这将有助于评估旨在改善SRH知识的干预措施,从而促进提高健康素养和成果。