Second- and Third-Trimester Medical Abortion Providers and Services in 2019: Results From the Canadian Abortion Provider Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Mifepristone became available in Canada in 2017. Updated national guidelines recommend its off-label use for second/third-trimester medical abortion (STMA/TTMA) by labour induction. The objective of this study was to explore STMA/TTMA provision in Canada and the role of mifepristone. METHODS: We conducted a national, cross-sectional, web-based, self-administered, anonymized survey, available in English and French. The survey was distributed through health professional organizations and recruited physicians who provided abortion care in 2019. We used a modified Dillman technique to maximize participation. The survey included sections on workforce and clinical care, including mifepristone use. We used R statistical software to produce descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-five clinicians responded to the survey, of whom 112 reported providing STMA and 63, TTMA, for a total of 115 respondents providing at least 1 of the 2 services. Two-thirds of respondents were general obstetrician-gynaecologists or family physicians and the remainder were maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists. The majority (64.7%) provided STMA/TTMA in an academic hospital, and 59.4% performed fewer than 5 STMAs (maximum 50) and 76.1%, fewer than 5 TTMA (maximum 15) in 2019. Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported having used mifepristone/misoprostol for STMA. Among mifepristone users, 48.6% used it for TTMA. Most required an indication beyond patient request to provide STMA/TTMA (82.1%/95.5%). CONCLUSIONS: STMA/TTMA care is provided by multiple (sub-) specialties, and mifepristone has not yet been universally implemented. Our results will inform knowledge translation activities aimed at facilitating collaboration between STMA/TTMA providers and health policy and service delivery leaders and will further increase mifepristone use for STMA/TTMA in Canada.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".