Repeat use of emergency contraception: How frequent is it?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To measure the level of repeat use of emergency contraception (EC) in family planning clinics (FPCs) in North and East Devon. DESIGN: An audit of repeat use of EC was carried out in seven FPCs, in parallel with a client survey. All women seeking EC in the study period were included (n = 572). RESULTS: Nearly 70% of women had 'ever' used EC prior to the study visit; over half had previously used EC in the year of the study; a quarter had previously used EC three or more times in the same period. Teenagers were more likely to have previously used EC in the study year, but half of all repeat users were aged 20 and older. Asked why EC was needed today, most women reported current use of regular contraception, but almost a quarter had had unprotected sex, and half reported a condom mishap. CONCLUSIONS: These results show frequent repeat use of EC and do not support recent research based on general practice records, which suggests that repeat use is rare. If EC users use multiple sources of EC, or prefer alternative sources, repeat use of EC will be underestimated if calculated using general practitioner (GP) records alone.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".