Perceived Benefits and Barriers to Family Planning Education among Third Year Medical Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of the current study is to explore third- year medical students’ interest in learning about family planning, exposure to family planning (contraception and abortion) and perceived barriers and benefits to family planning education in their obstetrics and gynecology rotation.Method: We conducted four focus groups with 27 third-year medical students near the end of their rotation in obstetrics and gynecology.Results: Students desired education in family planning but perceived limited exposure during their rotation. Most students were aware of abortion but lacked factual information and abortion procedural skills. They felt systemic and faculty-related barriers contributed to limited exposure. Students discussed issues such as lack of time for coverage of contraception and abortion in the curricula and rotation itself. Perceived benefits of clinical instruction in family planning included increased knowledge of contraceptive management and abortion the ability to care for and relate to patients, opportunity for values clarification, and positive changes in attitudes towards family planning.Conclusions: Medical students who desire full education in family planning during their obstetrics and gynecology rotation may face barriers to obtaining that education. Given that many medical students will eventually care for reproductive-age women, greater promotion of opportunities for exposure to family planning within obstetrics and gynecology rotations is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".