Do women seeking termination of pregnancy need pre-abortion counselling?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pre-termination counselling is currently voluntary in the UK; however, there has been political debate regarding the introduction of mandatory pre-termination counselling as well as who should be providing the abortion counselling services. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the proportion of women who use pre-termination counselling services and to evaluate their experience. METHOD: An anonymous self-administered questionnaire of women requesting an abortion at Chalmers Sexual Health Centre and the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Lothian from 6 October to 2 December 2014. RESULTS: Only 18 (9%) of the 201 women surveyed reported using pre-termination counselling. The majority of women did not feel counselling was necessary because they were already certain of their decision. Nearly a quarter (22%) of women claimed to not know counselling was available. Women who did use counselling were satisfied with the services they received. The majority of counselling services were provided by the National Health Service and only one woman used a 'pro-life' charity. Women stated that they would prefer face-to-face counselling rather than telephone or Internet-based counselling. CONCLUSIONS: Most women do not seem to want or need pre-termination counselling therefore policies aimed at mandatory counselling, would be contrary to women's wishes. Counselling should be targeted at women with risk factors for psychological complications post-termination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".