MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297172823 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210232

Abortion services and providers in Canada in 2019: results of a national survey

2022· article· en· W4297172823 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Regina Renner, Madeleine Ennis, Damien Contandriopoulos, Édith Guilbert, Sheila Dunn, Janusz Kaczorowski, Elizabeth Darling, Arianne Albert, Claire Styffe, Wendy V. Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité LavalB.C. Women's Hospital & Health CentreUniversity of VictoriaMcMaster UniversityWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoWomen's Health Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMonash UniversityPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsAbortionBusinessNational Survey of Family GrowthFamily planningMedicineEnvironmental healthPregnancyResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Since 2016, abortion care has undergone several important changes, particularly related to the provision of medical abortion using mifepristone. We aimed to document characteristics of the abortion care workforce in Canada after the update of clinical practice guidelines of mifepristone use for medical abortion. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a national, web-based, anonymized, bilingual (English/French) survey. We collected demographics and clinical care characteristics of physicians and nurse practitioners who provided abortion care in 2019. Between July and December 2020, we distributed the survey through professional organizations, including The College of Family Physicians of Canada and The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. We present descriptive statistics. <h3>Results:</h3> Overall, 465 respondents representing all 10 provinces and 3 territories in Canada completed the survey. Of these, 388 (83.4%), including 30 nurse practitioners, provided first-trimester medical abortion, of which 350 (99.4%) used mifepristone. Two hundred and nineteen (47.1%) respondents provided first-trimester surgical abortion, 109 (23.4%) provided second-trimester surgical abortion and 115 (24.7%) provided second- or third-trimester medical abortion. Half of respondents reported fewer than 5 years of experience with any abortion care. Respondents reported providing a total of 48 509 abortions in 2019, including 32 345 (66.7%) first-trimester surgical abortions and 13 429 (27.7%) first-trimester medical abortions. In Quebec, only 1918 (12.5%) of reported abortions were first-trimester medical abortions. Primary care providers provided 34 540 (71.2%) of the total abortions. First-trimester medical abortions represented 44.4% (<i>n</i> = 2334) of all abortions in rural areas, as opposed to 25.6% (<i>n</i> = 11 067) in urban areas. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> The increased availability of medical abortion facilitates abortion access, especially in primary care and rural settings, and where surgical abortion is not available. Rejuvenation of the workforce is a critical contributor to equitable access to abortion services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207