Access experiences and attitudes toward abortion among youth experiencing homelessness in the United States: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to review the literature on the access experiences and attitudes toward abortion among youth experiencing homelessness in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published from 2001 to 2019. We included qualitative studies involving US participants that focused on access experiences, views, or accounts of unintended pregnancy and/or abortion among youth experiencing homelessness. We excluded studies published before 2001 as that was the year mifepristone medication abortion was made available in the US and we aimed to investigate experiences of access to both medical and surgical abortion options. RESULTS: Our thematic analysis of the data resulted in five key themes that characterize the abortion attitudes and access experiences of youth experiencing homelessness: (1) engaging in survival sex and forced sex, (2) balancing relationships and autonomy, (3) availability does not equal access, (4) attempting self-induced abortions using harmful methods, and (5) feeling resilient despite traumatic unplanned pregnancy experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Youth experiencing homelessness experience barriers to abortion access across the US, including in states with a supportive policy context and publicly funded abortion services. In the absence of accessible services, youth may consider harmful methods of self-induced abortion. Improved services should be designed to offer low-barrier abortion care with the qualities that youth identified as important to them, including privacy and autonomy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".