Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since 2002, specially qualified nursing sisters and midwives have had the right to prescribe contraceptive pills for women aged 16 to 19. This arrangement has since been expanded to cover hormonal contraception, with the exception of the hormonal coil. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the arrangement. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The prescription register uses pseudonyms and contains a number of facts about user, medication and prescriber. A database of women born in 1989, totalling 29,821, has been designed as a unit for analysis. RESULTS: 75 and 79% of the cohort had filled at least one prescription for contraceptive pills or hormonal contraception by the end of the calendar year in which they turned 19. Almost 12% had filled at least one prescription for the mini-pill, while far fewer had filled prescriptions for vaginal hormone ring, contraceptive injection, contraceptive patch or hormonal coil. Doctors issued two third of the prescriptions. Nursing sisters wrote more prescriptions than doctors for the age group 17-18. The period of time during which they had been using the contraceptive pill and the mini-pill did not depend on who prescribed them. INTERPRETATION: The fact that close to 80% of the cohort born in 1989 has filled at least one prescription for hormonal contraception shows that there is a high degree of awareness about preventing unplanned pregnancy. Extending the right to write prescriptions to nurses and midwives has increased the availability of contraception, and young women are taking advantage of this option.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".