Faculty Opinions recommendation of Is repeat use of emergency contraception common among pharmacy clients? Evidence from Kenya.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As emergency contraception (EC) becomes more widely available in African pharmacies, public concern in many countries has emerged over perceived "repeat use" of the method. This study examines issues of repeat use in Kenya, a country where women almost exclusively obtain EC from pharmacies.STUDY DESIGN: Interviews were conducted with all clients who purchased EC from private pharmacies located in five urban areas across Kenya. Over a period of 5 days, a total of 182 male and female EC purchasers were interviewed. χ(2) tests were used to determine the statistical significance of differences between repeat and nonrepeat users.RESULTS: The majority (58%) of respondents had purchased EC at least twice in the past 1 month. All women interviewed reported purchasing EC a mean of 3.8 times in the 6 months prior to the survey. Those who purchased EC at least twice in the past 1 month were significantly more likely to hold misperceptions about EC's efficacy or side effects. Two thirds of all users reported having a chance to ask questions at the pharmacy, although one quarter felt that they did not receive adequate information.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that many of the women surveyed, particularly those who had sex on an infrequent basis, chose to use EC as a regular family planning method. Among these women, it also indicates the need for better information on EC's efficacy and side effects. Such information-sharing could take place within pharmacies, although interventions must not undermine the core benefits of pharmacy access: convenience and confidentiality.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. PMID: 21397093
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 | 0.007 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.271 | 0.034 |
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".