Abortion care for adolescent and young women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancy among adolescents (10-19years) and young women (20-24years) is a global public health problem. Adolescents face challenges in accessing safe abortion care. OBJECTIVE: To determine, via a systematic data review, whether abortion care for adolescent and young women differs clinically from that for older women. METHODS: In a comprehensive data review, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and POPLINE databases were searched from the earliest data entered until November 2012. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing effectiveness, safety, acceptability, and long-term sequelae of abortion care between adolescent/young women and older women were identified. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and the Cochrane guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. RESULTS: In total, there were 25 studies including 346 000 women undergoing first- and second-trimester medical abortion, vacuum aspiration, or dilation and evacuation. Effectiveness and overall complications were similar among age groups. However, younger women had an increased risk for cervical laceration and a decreased risk of uterine perforation and mortality. Satisfaction and long-term depression were similar between age groups. Except for less uptake of intrauterine devices among adolescents, age did not affect post-abortion contraception. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from various healthcare systems indicates that abortion is safe and efficacious among adolescent and young women. Clinical services should promote access to safe abortion for adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".