A systematic review of the effect of reproductive intention screening in primary care settings on reproductive health outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: No recommendations exist for routine reproductive intention screening in primary care. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effect of reproductive intention screening in primary care on reproductive health outcomes (PROSPERO CRD42015019726). Methods: We performed a systematic search in Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, CDR/DARE databases, Web of Science, ISRCTN registry, Clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane Library. Studies published in English between 2000 and 2017 and whose population was patients of reproductive age (15-49) were included. Studies without a comparison group were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility, study quality and abstracted data. Results: Of 24 780 titles and/or abstracts reviewed, nine studies met inclusion criteria: four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five observational studies. Two RCTs and one quasi-experimental cohort study showed a statistically significant increase in knowledge related to healthier pregnancy, such as the benefits of folic acid supplementation, and increased risk profiles for those with chronic conditions. Among studies measuring contraceptive use, only one cohort study showed any increase while the RCT and retrospective cohort did not show a statistically significant effect. Neither of the two RCTs that assessed the provision of contraception by primary care providers for those not desiring pregnancy found increased access to contraception, although one found increased documentation of contraception in electronic medical records. Acceptability of reproductive intention screening was measured in seven studies, and participant satisfaction was high in all seven studies. Conclusions: More research is needed to determine whether routine inclusion of reproductive intention screening in primary care is warranted.
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 | 0.023 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".