Young Women's Contraceptive Decision Making: Do Preferences for Contraceptive Attributes Align with Method Choice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Understanding how women's preferences for certain attributes of contraceptive methods relate to their method choice can inform the content of contraceptive counseling. METHODS: Data from 715 women aged 18-29 who had ever used contraceptives were drawn from the 2009 National Survey of Reproductive and Contraceptive Knowledge. Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine how women's preferences for specific contraceptive attributes were related to their social and demographic characteristics and their current contraceptive choice. RESULTS: The majority of women considered it extremely important for a method to be very effective at preventing pregnancy (79%) and to be effective at preventing HIV and STDs (67%); fewer than one-quarter felt similarly about a method's being hormone-free (22%). Women who felt it was quite or extremely important for a method to be very effective at preventing pregnancy were not more likely to use the most effective methods than were women who considered this attribute not at all or only slightly important. Women who considered it quite or extremely important for a method to be hormone-free were less likely than others to use hormonal methods (odds ratio, 0.4), and women who considered STD protection quite or extremely important had elevated odds of relying on condoms alone, rather than on an effective contraceptive method alone (3.6). CONCLUSIONS: Most women desire a very effective method for pregnancy prevention, but it is unclear how this translates to their contraceptive use. The associations between women's preferred contraceptive attributes and method choice warrant further attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".