How did the introduction of mifepristone impact the availability of abortion care in Ottawa? A qualitative study with abortion patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2017, mifepristone and misoprostol became available for early pregnancy termination as the combination pack Mifegymiso® in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. We conducted 40 semi-structured telephone interviews with Ottawa residents who had abortions before mifepristone’s introduction ( n = 20) and after mifepristone–misoprostol became available ( n = 20) to explore their experiences obtaining care. We audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews and analyzed these data for content and themes using deductive and inductive techniques. Prior to the introduction of mifepristone, our participants reported obtaining abortion care at two facilities and many faced long wait times. Those who had an abortion after mifepristone became available reported obtaining care from a wider array of providers and few waited more than two weeks. However, several mifepristone–misoprostol users reported having to go through a process that involved as many as 10 health service encounters. Both groups reflected positively on their abortion experiences, but some patients who obtained mifepristone–misoprostol outside of an abortion clinic did not feel as well informed as they would have liked. The introduction of mifepristone appears to have expanded the number of service delivery points and reduced wait times for those seeking abortion care in Ottawa. Identifying ways to expand access to medication abortion information and streamline services 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".