Community sexual health providers’ views on immediate postpartum provision of intrauterine contraception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing access to effective postpartum contraceptive methods can reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and short inter-birth intervals. The need for an additional postpartum visit can be a barrier to women accessing intrauterine contraception after childbirth. Immediate postpartum intrauterine contraception (PPIUC) provision is known to be safe, but is not routinely available in the UK. Establishing this service requires multidisciplinary support, including from community and maternity stakeholders. The aim of this study was to determine the views of community sexual health providers towards PPIUC implementation. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to attendees at two UK sexual health conferences. Research questions focused on (1) views on PPIUC (2) perceived role of the sexual health provider in PPIUC service and (3) potential challenges anticipated in providing PPIUC aftercare. Free-text boxes were provided for further comment. Analysis was by a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: A total of 240 questionnaires were distributed with 156 completed (response rate 65%). Some 128 respondents (82%) felt 'positive' towards the PPIUC implementation. Most respondents (67.9%) indicated they would be happy to promote PPIUC and provide thread checks. Perceived challenges in providing PPIUC aftercare included staff time, experience in managing clinical issues, and access to ultrasound. CONCLUSIONS: Community sexual health providers were positive towards PPIUC implementation, and perceived their role predominantly in the aftercare of women. Several clinical and practical challenges were identified, some of which differ from those previously expressed by other groups. Stakeholder involvement is key to successful implementation of PPIUC, and wider recognition of potential barriers can assist in developing strategies to overcome these.
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 | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".