MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021554851 · doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.08.037

Costs of post‐abortion care in low‐ and middle‐income countries

2009· review· en· W2021554851 on OpenAlexaff
Jessica Shearer, Damian Walker, Michael Vlassoff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionUnit (ring theory)Latin AmericansActivity-based costingUnivariateHealth careBusinessMedicineEnvironmental healthSocioeconomicsEconomic growthPregnancyEconomicsMultivariate statisticsPolitical scienceStatisticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of costing studies of post-abortion care from low- and middle-income countries and to describe costs in various settings. METHODS: A systematic review identified unit costs. Descriptive statistical analysis and univariate regression analysis identified drivers of unit costs of post-abortion care. RESULTS: There are few cost studies from Asia or Eastern Europe. Data indicate that the cost (in 2007 international dollars) of post-abortion care in Africa and Latin America is $392 and $430, respectively, per case. CONCLUSION: Differences in post-abortion care costs were associated with region, procedure, facility level, case severity, and whether the study was operations research. Methods varied between studies, and efforts should be made in future research to improve consistency. Additional data are needed from Asia and Eastern Europe, as well as the costs of medical methods of uterine evacuation. These data justify improved access to contraception and safe, legal abortion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Gynecology & ObstetricsSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207