Service users’ attributes associated with the uptake of medical versus surgical abortion at public health facilities in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the attributes of service users associated with uptake of medical abortion (MA) versus manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) at public health facilities in Vietnam. METHODS: Structured exit interviews were conducted among women who underwent termination at 62 public health facilities in Hanoi, Khanh Hoa, and Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) between August and December 2011. Data on sociodemographic, abortion-related, and service-related factors were compared between women who underwent MVA versus MA. RESULTS: Overall, 1233 women completed the study survey: 541 (43.9%) from Hanoi; 163 (13.2%) from Khanh Hoa; and 529 (42.9%) from HCMC. Almost one-quarter of women (23.1%) had chosen MA. After controlling for sociodemographic factors, women living in Khanh Hoa (odds ratio [OR], 13.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3-33.8) and HCMC (OR, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.1-15.9) were more likely to have undergone MA than women in Hanoi. Older women were less likely to have undergone MA (P < 0.05), and those who had previously heard of MA were twice as likely to have undergone MA (P = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Uptake of MA was lower than that of MVA and varied by province. Women in Vietnam will make their own judgment about which method to choose if they have prior knowledge of both.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".