Facilitators of, and Barriers to, Accessing Reproductive Care in Canada for Same-sex Male Couples (SSMC) and Single Men (SM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Same-sex male couples (SSMCs) and single men (SM) are increasingly using assisted reproductive technologies (ART) to have children, yet research on their experience accessing care in Canada is limited. The objective of this preliminary study was to evaluate experiences of SSMCs and SM who have pursued ART in Canada. Data were collected from 08/2018 - 01/2019 through convenience sampling using a 58-item anonymous online survey. Seventy-two completed surveys were used for the analysis. Four of five participants (n=58, 80.5%) had a positive overall experience using ART. Resources such as high socio-economic status and social support were facilitators to accessing ART in Canada. Barriers to accessing care included: cost, time commitment, experience of stigma, and difficulties securing third parties when using ART. This research may guide practice and policy implications for reproductive healthcare services in Canada, such as provision of funding to make ART more accessible to all demographics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".