“They really hear you out”: Lessons on providing contraceptive care from a community-based sexual health clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals in Canada may obtain prescription contraception from a family doctor, a walk-in clinic, or sexual health clinic. While there are guidelines for best practice in contraceptive care, the quality of this care varies widely. Access to any contraceptive care is also a concern, partly due to increasing pressures on physicians’ time. These issues have led to calls to expand contraceptive care into the purview of nurses and other qualified health professionals, a ‘task-sharing’ approach. Here, we use data from semi-structured interviews with providers and patients at a sexual health clinic in British Columbia to examine the benefits of such an approach as implemented in this particular clinic. We conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians, nurses, volunteer peer contraceptive educators, and patients about their experience providing or obtaining care at the clinic, and thematically analyzed the resulting data. Interviewees identified four key benefits in the clinic’s approach: the value of a specialized sexual health clinic where providers had a wealth of experience providing sexual health care; the time and attention given by providers relative to practitioners at other types of clinics; the increased efficiency facilitated by a task-sharing approach; and the inclusive and supportive environment. Although some aspects of this clinic’s strategy are not transferrable to all settings, implementing elements of this model in other settings could increase access to quality contraceptive care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".