Contraceptive Provision to Postpartum Women With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Population‐Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Women with intellectual and developmental disabilities who experience pregnancy, like all women, require postpartum care that supports their contraceptive knowledge and decision making. Yet, little is known about the postpartum contraceptive care these women receive, or how it compares with care given to other women. METHODS: A population-based study using linked health and social services administrative data examined provision of postpartum contraceptive care to women who had a live birth in Ontario, Canada, in 2002-2014 and were beneficiaries of Ontario's publicly funded drug plan. Modified Poisson regression was used to compare care between 1,181 women with and 36,259 women without intellectual and developmental disabilities. Outcomes were provision of any nonbarrier contraceptive in the year following the birth and type of method provided. RESULTS: In the first year postpartum, women with intellectual and developmental disabilities were provided with contraceptives at a higher rate than were other women (relative risk 1.3); the difference was significant for both nonsurgical and surgical methods (1.2 and 1.8, respectively). The higher rate of nonsurgical contraceptive provision was explained by provision of injectables (1.9); there were no differences for pills or IUDs. CONCLUSION: Nonbarrier contraceptives may be the most appropriate methods for some women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. However, future research should investigate why women with such disabilities are more likely than others to receive injectable contraceptives, which have possible negative side effects, and surgical contraception, which is irreversible. Research also should investigate how these women perceive their participation in contraceptive decision making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".