Exploring the Availability of Emergency Contraception in New Brunswick Pharmacies: A Mystery-Client Telephone Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptive pills (LNg-ECPs) have been available over the counter in Canada for more than a decade, barriers to access persist. We aimed to obtain information about the availability and cost of LNg-ECPs in New Brunswick. Using a mystery-client study design, we called all 207 non-specialty pharmacies in the province posing as a 17-year-old woman seeking something to prevent pregnancy after sex. We evaluated the information provided for accuracy and quality. The overwhelming majority of pharmacies (n = 180, 87%) had at least one brand of LNg-ECPs in stock; the price averaged CAD28.69 (USD21.65). Although the majority of pharmacy representatives provided accurate information about LNg-ECPs, a small number made incorrect statements about the timeframe for use, side effects, and mechanism of action. In nine interactions (4%) pharmacy representatives incorrectly indicated that a male partner could not obtain LNg-ECPs; none indicated that parental involvement was required to procure LNg-ECPs. None of the pharmacy representatives referenced any other modality of emergency contraception, including ulipristal acetate. Our findings suggest that LNg-ECPs are widely available and that most pharmacy representatives are providing accurate medical and regulatory information. However, supporting the continuing education of pharmacists and pharmacy staff, particularly around alternative modalities of emergency contraception, appears warranted.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".