First trimester medication abortion practice in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of abortion facilities from professional networks in the United States (US, n = 703) and Canada (n = 94) to estimate the prevalence of medication abortion practices in these settings and to look at regional differences. Administrators responded to questions on gestational limits, while up to five clinicians per facility reported on 2012 medication abortion practice. At the time of fielding, mifepristone was not approved in Canada. 383 (54.5%) US and 78 (83.0%) Canadian facilities participated. In the US, 95.3% offered first trimester medication abortion compared to 25.6% in Canada. While 100% of providers were physicians in Canada, just under half (49.4%) were advanced practice clinicians in the US, which was more common in Eastern and Western states. All Canadian providers used misoprostol; 85.3% with methotrexate. 91.4% of US providers used 200 mg of mifepristone and 800 mcg of misoprostol, with 96.7% reporting home misoprostol administration. More than three-quarters of providers in both countries required an in-person follow-up visit, generally with ultrasound. 87.7% of US providers routinely prescribed antibiotics compared to 26.2% in Canada. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were the most commonly reported analgesic, with regional variation in opioid narcotic prescription. In conclusion, medication abortion practice follows evidence-based guidelines in the US and Canada. Efforts to update practice based on the latest evidence for reducing in-person visits and increasing provision by advanced practice clinicians could strengthen these services and reduce barriers to access. Research is needed on optimal antibiotic and analgesic use.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".