Contraception Use and Attitudes Among Women Seeking Pregnancy Termination [9G]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Unintended pregnancies pose negative health and social outcomes to mother and child. North America's unplanned pregnancy rate of 51% is higher than the worldwide rate of 40%. The purpose of this research is to investigate contraceptive use and future contraceptive plans among women presenting for pregnancy termination. METHODS: For this descriptive study, women presenting for pregnancy termination were recruited by clinic counsellors. Consenting women completed a self-administered anonymous survey. Ethics approval was obtained. Data were entered using REDCap and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 334 participants, 45% used contraception at the time of conception including condoms (54%), combined hormonal contraception (CHC) (35%), withdrawal (30%), rhythm (6%) and intrauterine device (IUD) (3%). Among contraceptive users (n=149) the most common reason for method failure was imperfect use (50%). Among contraceptive non-users (n=185) the most common reason for non-use was perceived low risk of pregnancy (60%). Awareness of emergency contraception (EC) was 97% for Plan B, 33% for copper IUD and 6% for Ulipristal acetate, yet only 53% had ever used EC. 93% of women planned to use contraception in the future, including IUD (32%), CHC (34%), condoms (8%), rhythm (1%) and withdrawal (0.3%). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that educating women on the risk of pregnancy and proper use of contraceptive methods would provide the highest yield in reducing unplanned pregnancies. Widespread awareness of EC is not sufficient to ensure its use in the population at risk of unplanned pregnancy. Furthermore, pregnancy termination presents an opportunity to initiate highly effective methods of contraception.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".