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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02854-7
2024-02-06
Abstract:Abstract Background Many 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. Methods In 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. Results Students 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). Conclusion A 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.
public, environmental & occupational health,obstetrics & gynecology