Knowledge of, beliefs about, and perceived barriers to the use of the emergency contraception pill among women aged 18-51 in Nova Scotia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate women in Nova Scotia (NS), Canada with respect to their knowledge of, beliefs about, and perceptions of barriers to accessing emergency contraception pills (ECP). METHODS: A random digit dialing approach was used to survey a representative sample of NS women aged 18-51. Analyses described the knowledge, beliefs, and perceived barriers associated with ECP access among participants. Particular focus was given to differences between younger (age 18-31) and older (age 32-51) women. RESULTS: The survey response rate of 49% achieved the desired sample size of 770. Overall, women in NS appeared to be poorly informed about ECP with regards to effectiveness, proper timing of administration, how it works, as well as how to access Plan B®. Younger women (age 18-31) were significantly more likely than older women (age 32-51) to know that ECP does not always prevent pregnancy (p<0.01), that it can be taken more than 12 hours after unprotected intercourse (p<0.01), and that it is available without a prescription in pharmacies (p<0.01). Thirty percent of women agreed that ECP will cause an abortion, with older women (p<0.01) being more likely than younger women to agree. Cost and lack of privacy in pharmacies were identified as potential barriers to access. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of knowledge and the perception that ECP causes an abortion may influence a woman's ability to consider ECP as an option should she find herself at risk of an unplanned pregnancy. To address this, efforts should be made to educate women (including older women) about ECP and its availability in pharmacies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".