Accessibility of emergency contraception for adolescents in Quebec community pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Access to effective contraceptives, including emergency contraception (EC), is critical to reducing unintended adolescent pregnancy. This study evaluates the accessibility of Ln-EC (levonorgestrel EC) for adolescents in Quebec community pharmacies. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous self-administered electronic survey of Quebec community pharmacists between June 1, 2016 and October 31, 2016. Pharmacists were asked about the availability of Ln-EC in their pharmacy, whether they prescribed Ln-EC, and their experience with adolescents who requested Ln-EC. RESULTS: Five hundred and ninety-one pharmacists responded, with representation from across the province. Ninety-five per cent had Ln-EC in stock. Most pharmacists (90%) reported being comfortable prescribing Ln-EC, though they were less comfortable prescribing to adolescents than to adults (*P<0.001). Pharmacists also reported that cost and confidentiality are barriers to accessing Ln-EC for some adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that availability and pharmacist comfort are not likely to be barriers to Ln-EC use for adolescents. On the other hand, cost and/or confidentiality do represent a barrier for some adolescents. This study lays the groundwork for a national study examining the accessibility of EC for adolescents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".