Abortion Training in Canadian Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To study abortion training in Canadian obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) residency programs. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to all postgraduate year (PGY)-4 and PGY-5 ob-gyn residents (n=130) and residency program directors (n=16) in Canada. The questionnaires inquired about demographic information, details of abortion training, resident participation in training, and intention to provide abortions after residency. RESULTS: Ninety-two of 130 residents (71%) and 15 of 16 program directors (94%) responded. Abortion training is considered routine in approximately half of programs and elective in half. The majority of residents (71%) participated in abortion training, and half plan to do elective abortions after residency. More than half of residents felt competent after training to perform first-trimester aspiration and second-trimester inductions but did not feel competent in first-trimester medical abortions or dilation and evacuation (D&E). Residents were more likely to participate in training if the program arranged the training for residents (P=.04) and were more likely to intend to provide abortions if the training was considered routine (P=.02), while controlling for all significant demographic and training variables. CONCLUSION: Most Canadian ob-gyn programs offer some training in elective abortion, but only half include it routinely in training, and the minority of residents feels competent in D&E and medical abortion. Integrated abortion training was associated with greater resident participation in training and increased likelihood of intention to provide abortions after residency.
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 | 0.000 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".