“In rape cases we can use this pill”: A multimethods assessment of emergency contraception knowledge, access, and needs on the Thailand − Burma border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate availability, service delivery, and barriers to access to emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) along the Thailand-Burma border. METHODS: From June 2010 to May 2011 we undertook a multimethods qualitative assessment among cross-border populations, migrants, and refugees. We conducted 46 key informant interviews with representatives from 25 organizations, 18 focus group discussions with migrant adults, migrant adolescents, and healthcare workers, and a service mapping exercise with 22 stakeholders. RESULTS: We found low use of ECPs among the target populations. Structural barriers and lack of evidence-based reproductive health protocols, education, and information restrict access to the limited family planning resources available in this region. Misinformation about ECPs was widespread among health workers and organizational policies were often non-evidence based. CONCLUSION: Potential policy and program interventions to improve access to ECPs along the Thailand-Burma border include integrating evidence-based practices into community efforts, expanding training opportunities for health workers, and improving communication and coordination among organizations serving populations on both sides of the border.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".