MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Emergency Contraception in Post‐Conflict Somalia: An Assessment of Awareness and Perceptions of Need

2016· article· en· W2340806541 on OpenAlexafffund
Faduma Gure, Mohammed Koshin Dahir, Marian Yusuf, Angel M. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Family Planning · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareSociety of Family Planning
KeywordsSomaliFocus groupEmergency contraceptionQualitative researchPillEnthusiasmMedicineFamily planningFamily medicinePopulationPsychologyNursingEnvironmental healthSocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In conflict-affected settings such as Somalia, emergency contraception (EC) has the potential to serve as an important means of pregnancy prevention. Yet Somalia remains one of the few countries without a registered progestin-only EC pill. In 2014, we conducted a qualitative, multi-methods study in Mogadishu to explore awareness of and perceptions of need for EC. Our project included 10 semi-structured key informant interviews, 20 structured in-person interviews with pharmacists, and four focus group discussions with married and unmarried Somali women. Our findings reveal a widespread lack of knowledge of both existing family planning methods and EC. However, once we described EC, participants expressed enthusiasm for expanding access to post-coital contraception. Our results shed light on why Somalia continues to be a global exception with respect to an EC product and suggest possible politically and culturally acceptable and effective avenues for introducing EC into the health system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in Family PlanningSame topicGlobal Maternal and Child HealthFrench-language works237,207