Task‐shifting in the delivery of hormonal contraceptive methods: Validation of a questionnaire and preliminary results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guilbert ER, Morin D, Guilbert AC, Gagnon H, Robitaille J, Richardson M. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2011; 17: 315–321 Task‐shifting in the delivery of hormonal contraceptive methods: Validation of a questionnaire and preliminary results In order to palliate the access problem to effective contraceptive methods in Quebec, Canada, as well as to legitimate nurses' practices in family planning, a collaborative agreement was developed that allow nurses, in conjunction with pharmacists, to give hormonal contraceptives to healthy women of reproductive age for a 6 month period. Training in hormonal contraception was offered to targeted nurses before they could begin this practice. A questionnaire, based on Rogers's theory of diffusion of innovations, was elaborated and validated to specifically evaluate this phenomenon. Preliminary results show that the translation of training into practice might be suboptimal. The validated questionnaire can now be used to fully understand the set of factors influencing this new practice.
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 | 0.058 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".