Women’s Knowledge of, Access to, and Experiences with Emergency Contraception in New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ensuring that women have timely access to safe, effective and affordable emergency contraception (EC) is of critical importance. There are four primary modalities of EC available in Canada: the levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill (LNg-ECP), the copper-T intrauterine device (IUD), ulipristal acetate (UPA) and the Yupze method (combined oral contraceptive pills). This is a mixed methods study dedicated to exploring women’s knowledge of, access to and experiences with EC in New Brunswick (NB). This study consisted of a two-part mystery client study, a community-based survey, and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with women in NB. The results of the mystery-client study indicate that 180 (87%) pharmacies had at least one brand of LNG-ECPs in stock. Although availability and knowledge of LNG-ECPs among NB pharmacists is relatively high, some are still providing incorrect medical and regulatory information. The findings of this study illustrate where improvement in pharmacy provision of LNG-ECPs in NB is required. Knowledge of EC among women in NB is relatively low, especially with respect to the IUD and UPA. Continuation of education efforts among pharmacists and sexual education teachers concerning ECPs in NB appears warranted. Exploring the barriers that NB women face in obtaining ECPs is not only imperative for improving access, but also yielding better quality reproductive health services in the province.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".