Postpartum Contraception in Adolescents: Data From a Single Tertiary Clinic in Southeast of Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: We aimed to evaluate the postpartum contraception preferences of adolescent women in this study. MATERIALS & METHOD: This descriptive study was prepared after a retrospective analysis of file records of primigravida women who had given birth at the Adiyaman University School of Medicine Training and Research Hospital Department of Obstetric and Gynecology between January 2010 and June 2012. More than 12 months had passed after birth. The adolescents who were included in the study and the control group women were called by phone and invited to our clinic. A total of 506 adolescents and 1,046 control group women came to the clinic and were evaluated. The control group was formed of women between the age of 20-35 years who gave given birth in our clinic during the same period and were randomly selected. Postpartum obstetric history, contraception methods and data of these patients were recorded. RESULTS: The mean age was 18.3±0.4 years and 28.2±4.9 years in the adolescent group and control group respectively. No contraception other than lactation amenorrhea was used by 256 women of the adolescent group (50.6%) and 345 women of the control group (33%). The most commonly used contraceptive method in both groups other than lactation amenorrhea was condoms (160 women (64%) and 230 women (32.8%) respectively). The annual contraceptive failure rate was 3.95% in the adolescent group and 1.72% in the control group. The highest failure rate was with lactation amenorrhea in both groups. DISCUSSION: Adolescent women mostly use contraceptive methods with low reliability such as lactation amenorrhea and the calendar method in the postpartum period. Providing adequate contraceptive education is therefore important. On the other hand, starting such training starting in the early postnatal period will prevent recurring adolescent pregnancies with a short pregnancy interval.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".