MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337149414

Abortion health services in Canada: Results of a 2012 national survey.

2016· article· en· W2337149414 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wendy V. Norman, Édith Guilbert, Christopher Okpaleke, Althea Hayden, E.S. Lichtenberg, Maureen Paul, Katharine O. White, Heidi E. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionMedical abortionMedicineReproductive healthResidenceJurisdictionFamily planningDemographySocioeconomicsGeographyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPolitical sciencePopulationMisoprostolPregnancyLawSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the location of Canadian abortion services relative to where reproductive-age women reside, and the characteristics of abortion facilities and providers. DESIGN: An international survey was adapted for Canadian relevance. Public sources and professional networks were used to identify facilities. The bilingual survey was distributed by mail and e-mail from July to November 2013. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 94 abortion facilities were identified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and location of services were compared with the distribution of reproductive-age women by location of residence. RESULTS: We identified 94 Canadian facilities providing abortion in 2012, with 48.9% in Quebec. The response rate was 83.0% (78 of 94). Facilities in every jurisdiction with services responded. In Quebec and British Columbia abortion services are nearly equally present in large urban centres and rural locations throughout the provinces; in other Canadian provinces services are chiefly located in large urban areas. No abortion services were identified in Prince Edward Island. Respondents reported provision of 75 650 abortions in 2012 (including 4.0% by medical abortion). Canadian facilities reported minimal or no harassment, in stark contrast to American facilities that responded to the same survey. CONCLUSION: Access to abortion services varies by region across Canada. Services are not equitably distributed in relation to the regions where reproductive-age women reside. British Columbia and Quebec have demonstrated effective strategies to address disparities. Health policy and service improvements have the potential to address current abortion access inequity in Canada. These measures include improved access to mifepristone for medical abortion; provincial policies to support abortion services; routine abortion training within family medicine residency programs; and increasing the scope of practice for nurses and midwives to include abortion provision.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207