The effects of asking a fertility intention question in primary care settings: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Planning for pregnancy has been associated with reduced unwanted pregnancies and improved pregnancy outcomes. Despite the benefits of planned pregnancy, there are no guideline recommendations on routine counseling regarding pregnancy intention in primary care settings. The objective of the systematic review is to determine the effectiveness of incorporating questions of pregnancy intention into primary care. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature will be conducted for any studies comparing questions of pregnancy intention in primary care settings with no intervention or a control intervention. Types of studies will include randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, and observation studies. Participants will include patients of reproductive age presenting to primary health care settings. Interventions will include any assessment of fertility intention and follow-up care compared with a control group or no intervention. Outcomes will include quantitative data with rates for contraceptive uptake, and any pregnancy related outcome. Databases (Ovid MEDLINE; Pubmed; CINAHL; EMBASE; CDR/DARE databases; Web of Science; ISRCTN registry; Clinicaltrials.gov; Cochrane Library) will be searched from the year 2000 to current. Screening of identified articles and data extraction will be conducted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Jadad scale. Methodological quality of observational and non-randomized trials will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or by consulting a third author. Meta-analyses will be performed if appropriate. DISCUSSION: Determining the effect of including questions of pregnancy intention into primary care can provide evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and inform primary care providers if this simple and low-cost intervention should be routinely employed. This review will also identify any gaps in the current literature on this topic and provide direction for future research in this area of study. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015019726.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.099 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.007 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".