Could implementation of mifepristone address Canada’s urban–rural abortion access disparity: a mixed-methods implementation study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In January 2017, mifepristone-induced medical abortion was made available in Canada. In this study, we will seek to (1) understand facilitators and barriers to the implementation of mifepristone across Canada, (2) assess the impact of a 'community of practice' clinical and health service support platform and (3) engage in and assess the impact of integrated knowledge translation (iKT) activities aimed to improve health policy, systems and service delivery issues to enhance patient access to mifepristone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective mixed-methods implementation study will involve a national sample of physicians and pharmacists recruited via an online training programme, professional networks and a purpose-built community of practice website. Surveys that explore constructs related to diffusion of innovation and Godin's behaviour change frameworks will be conducted at baseline and at 6 months, and qualitative data will be collected from electronic interactions on the website. Survey participants and a purposeful sample of decision-makers will be invited to participate in in-depth interviews. Descriptive analyses will be conducted for quantitative data. Thematic analysis guided by the theoretical frameworks will guide interpretation of qualitative data. We will conduct and assess iKT activities involving Canada's leading health system and health professional leaders, including evidence briefs, Geographical Information System (GIS)maps, face-to-face meetings and regular electronic exchanges. Findings will contribute to understanding the mechanisms of iKT relationships and activities that have a meaningful effect on uptake of evidence into policy and practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from the University of British Columbia Children's and Women's Hospital Ethics Review Board (H16-01006). Full publication of the work will be sought in an international peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be disseminated to research participants through newsletters and media interviews, and to policy-makers through invited evidence briefs and face-to-face presentations.
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 | 0.066 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.005 |
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".