Promotion of Long‐Acting Reversible Contraception Among Adolescents and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants are recommended as first-line contraceptives by health care professional societies. However, uptake among US women lags substantially behind other developed countries. Little information is available on the extent to which clinicians document discussion about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in this patient population. We sought to determine the frequency with which clinicians document LARC discussion with eligible women aged 14 to 25 years in a training clinic and evaluate factors associated with LARC discussion and uptake. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all visits of nonpregnant women aged 14 to 25 years seen at an obstetrics and gynecology resident physician clinic during a calendar year. A logistic regression model was used to assess demographic factors associated with LARC education and uptake. RESULTS: Among 450 visits by eligible patients, LARC discussion was documented during 47.8% (215/450) of visits. Among visits with documentation of LARC counseling, 45.6% (98/215) had documentation of a LARC placement plan. Among patients who decided to initiate LARC, 40.8% (40/98) had a device placed at the same visit. LARC placement was documented during 8.9% (40/450) of visits. Clinicians documented LARC counseling for women aged 14 to 19 years more frequently than for women aged 20 to 25 years. Compared with women who did not use any method of contraception, clinicians documented LARC counseling less frequently for women who used short-term hormonal contraception. DISCUSSION: Clinicians in a training clinic did not document LARC counseling for more than half of eligible patients. Every clinical visit is an opportunity to assess risk of unintended pregnancy and ensure that contraceptive needs are addressed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".