Emergency contraception: Awareness, attitudes and barriers of Saudi Arabian Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess knowledge, attitude, and barriers about emergency contraception (EC) among married women of child bearing age. METHODS: A quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted over a 6-month period, commencing in March 2013 at Family Practice Clinics of King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Data was collected using a structured pretested questionnaire and analyzed using SPSS version 21.0 statistical software. RESULT: A total of 242 women were enrolled in the study. Only 6.2% (15/242) had some knowledge of EC and of these only two had ever used it. Health care professionals were the least reported source of EC information (6.6%, n=1). Majority (73.3%) had negative attitude toward EC being available over-the-counter without a prescription. The most common barriers to using EC were concerns about possible health effects. Only two women (13.3%) considered religious belief as a major hindrance to its use. CONCLUSION: Awareness of emergency contraception is very low among women of Saudi Arabia. Health care professionals were the least reported source of information, which is a cause for concern. Our findings reveal an urgent need to educate women about EC, keeping in view the social norms and the Islamic values.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".