Management of Early Pregnancy Failure and Induced Abortion by Family Medicine Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reproductive health care, including treatment of early pregnancy failure (EPF) and induced abortion, is an integral part of patient-centered care provided by family physicians, but data suggest that comprehensive training is not widely available to family medicine residents. The purpose of this study was to assess EPF and induced abortion management practices and attitudes of family medicine physician educators throughout the United States and Canada. METHODS: These data were collected as part of a cross-sectional survey conducted by the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance that was distributed via E-mail to 3152 practicing physician members of Council of Academic Family Medicine organizations. RESULTS: The vast majority of respondents (88.2%) had treated EPF, whereas few respondents (15.3%) had provided induced medication or aspiration abortions. Of those who had treated EPF, most had offered medication management (72.7%), whereas a minority had provided aspiration management (16.4%). Almost all respondents (95%) agreed that EPF management is within the scope of family medicine, and nearly three-quarters (73.2%) agreed that early induced abortion is within the scope of family medicine. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that family physician educators are more experienced with EPF management than elective abortion. Given the overlap of skills needed for provision of these services, there is the potential to increase the number of family physician faculty members providing induced abortions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".