MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Levels, Trends, and Determinants of Unintended Pregnancy in Iran: The Role of Contraceptive Failures

2013· article· en· W2036458387 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Erfani

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Family Planning · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnintended pregnancyDiscontinuationMedicineFamily planningFertilityPregnancyAbortionNational Survey of Family GrowthPopulationDemographyObstetricsEnvironmental healthPsychiatryResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rate of contraceptive use in Iran is high, but because abortion is illegal, many unintended pregnancies among married women are likely to be terminated by clandestine and often unsafe procedures, resulting in adverse health outcomes. Drawing upon data from the 2009 Tehran Survey of Fertility, this study estimates the levels and trends of unintended pregnancy and examines determinants of pregnancy intentions for the most recent birth, using multinomial logistic regression analysis. The level of unintended pregnancy decreased from 32 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2009, while contraceptive use increased. Unintended pregnancies in the five years preceding the 2009 survey resulted from failures of withdrawal (48 percent) and of modern contraceptive use (20 percent), together with contraceptive discontinuation (26 percent) and nonuse (6 percent). Multivariate findings show that, compared with women experiencing withdrawal failures, the risk of unintended pregnancy was higher among women reporting modern contraceptive failure and lower among those reporting contraceptive discontinuation and nonuse. The high risk of unwanted pregnancy among women experiencing failures in practicing withdrawal or using modern contraceptive methods points to an unmet need for family planning counseling and education rather than to a shortage of contraceptive methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Family PlanningSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207