Does the Cost Barrier to Contraception Differentially Affect Racialized and Indigenous Women? An Intersectional Quantitative Investigation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In Canada, 15% of sexually active women of reproductive age do not use any form of contraception (Black et al., 2009; Black, Guilbert, Costescu, et al., 2015; Black, Guilbert, Hassan, et al., 2015). The majority of women who do use contraception rely on methods with high failure rates such as condoms only and withdrawal (Black, Guilbert, Costescu, et al., 2015). The most effective forms of birth control, long-acting reversible contraception (LARCs), are underutilized and often the most expensive per unit (Black, Guilbert, Costescu, et al., 2015; Di Meglio & Yorke, 2019). Research has shown that racialized and Indigenous women often have different experiences and barriers to reproductive health care compared to non-racialized and non-Indigenous women (Sutton et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2013). One factor, cost, has been identified as the most important barrier to using effective contraception (Black, Guilbert, Hassan, et al., 2015; Hulme et al., 2015). \n \nSpecific Aims: Using data from the 2020 Annual Component of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), this thesis investigates two major questions (1) “Are racialized and Indigenous women less likely to use more expensive and effective forms of birth control than non-racialized and non-Indigenous women?” and (2) “Do differences in contraception use by racialized and Indigenous women, compared to non-racialized non-Indigenous women, appear to be due primarily to financial or cost barriers?”. \n \nMethods: Exploratory data analysis was first conducted in order to present univariate and bivariate distributions of predictor and outcome variables. Bivariate associations included Chi-square tests to examine significance at p >0.05. Three sets of multi-variable binary logistic regression models were then used to assess relationships between outcome and predictor variables. The first set of models examined the binary outcome of Use vs. Non-use, while the second set of models examined LARC contraception use from the sample of women who did use birth control. The last model investigated Use vs. Non-use of contraceptives among specific racial categories. \n \nResults: A large proportion (52.85%) of racialized women reported not using any form of birth control compared to 22.68% of white women and 20.97% of Indigenous women. Higher proportions of racialized women relied on condoms (62.03%) compared to Indigenous (32.91%) and white (35.15%) women. In the first group of binary regression models, racialized women were found to be significantly less likely (OR = 0.766, CI = 0.617, 0.951) to use contraception of any kind regardless of income, education or provincial location. Of the women who reported using contraception, racialized women were found to be significantly less likely (OR = 0.546, CI = 0.365, 0.816) to use LARC forms of birth control. In both sets of models, Indigenous women were not significantly different from white women. In a sub-analysis of only racialized women, Filipino women were found to be significantly less likely (OR = 0.297, CI = 0.129, 0.683) to use birth control of any kind. \n \nConclusion: The findings suggest that the relationship between identity category and contraception use is not fully explained or even impacted by socioeconomic elements such as income and education. These results emphasize the need for further exploration of disaggregated race data pertaining to reproductive health inequities. The results also provide recommendations for Canadian health policy modifications in order to improve contraception access and use among potentially vulnerable populations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».