Knowledge of Termination of Pregnancy (TOP) Legislation and Attitudes toward TOP Clinical Training among Medical Students Attending Two South African Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Provision of safe, voluntary, termination of pregnancy (TOP) in South Africa is challenged by an insufficient number of TOP-trained clinicians. Medical students' understanding of TOP legality and their attitudes toward TOP training are indicators for future service provision. We administered a 63-item questionnaire to explore these issues at the University of Cape Town and Walter Sisulu University. Ordinary least squares regression assessed predictors of TOP legislation knowledge and training attitudes. RESULTS: Of 1308 students, 95% knew that TOP was legal in South Africa, but few (27%) understood the specific provisions of the legislation beyond 13 weeks' gestation. Sixty-three percent desired more information about TOP. In multivariate models, female, white and sexually experienced students and students more advanced in school had better legislation knowledge (all p < .01). Attending religious services regularly (p < .01) was associated with lack of support for TOP training, whereas being in a relationship (p < .01) was associated with support for TOP training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".