Muslim women having abortions in Canada: attitudes, beliefs, and experiences.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To improve understanding of the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of Muslim patients presenting for abortion. DESIGN: Exploratory study in which participants completed questionnaires about their attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. SETTING: Two urban, free-standing abortion clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-three self-identified Muslim patients presenting for abortion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's background, beliefs, and attitudes toward their religion and toward abortion; levels of anxiety, depression, and guilt, scored on a scale of 0 to 10; and degree of pro-choice or antichoice attitude toward abortion, assessed by having respondents identify under which circumstances a woman should be able to have an abortion. RESULTS: The 53 women in this study were a diverse group, aged 17 to 47 years, born in 17 different countries, with a range of beliefs and attitudes toward abortion. As found in previous studies, women who were less pro-choice (identified fewer acceptable reasons to have an abortion) had higher anxiety and guilt scores than more pro-choice women did: 6.9 versus 4.9 (P = .01) and 6.9 versus 3.6 (P = .004), respectively. Women who said they strongly agreed that abortion was against Islamic principles also had higher anxiety and guilt scores: 9.3 versus 5.9 (P = .03) and 9.5 versus 5.3 (P = .03), respectively. CONCLUSION: Canadian Muslim women presenting for abortion come from many countries and schools of Islam. The group of Muslim women that we surveyed was so diverse that no generalizations can be made about them. Their attitudes toward abortion ranged from being completely prochoice to believing abortion is wrong unless it is done to save a woman's life. Many said they found their religion to be a source of comfort as well as a source of guilt, turning to prayer and meditation to cope with their feelings about the abortion. It is important that physicians caring for Muslim women understand that their patients come from a variety of backgrounds and can have widely differing beliefs. It might be helpful to be aware that patients who hold more anti-choice beliefs are likely to experience more anxiety and guilt related to their abortion than prochoice patients do.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".