Increasing the availability of long-acting reversible contraception and medical abortion in primary care: the Australian Contraception and Abortion Primary Care Practitioner Support Network (AusCAPPS) cohort study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although primary care practitioners are the main providers of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and early medical abortion (EMA) in Australia, few provide these services. A professional community of practice (CoP) has the potential to improve LARC and EMA provision through evidence-based guidance, expert support and peer-to-peer engagement.The primary objective is to establish, implement and evaluate an innovative, multidisciplinary online CoP (AusCAPPS Network) to increase LARC and EMA services in Australian primary care. Secondary objectives are to (1) increase the number of general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists certified to provide or dispense EMA, respectively, (2) increase LARC and EMA prescription rates and, (3) improve primary care practitioners' knowledge, attitudes and provision of LARC and EMA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A stakeholder knowledge exchange workshop (KEW) will be conducted to inform the AusCAPPS Network design. Once live, we aim to reach 3000 GPs, practice nurses and community pharmacists members. Changes in the number of GPs and pharmacists certified to provide or dispense EMA, respectively, and changes in the number of LARCs and EMAs prescribed will be gleaned through health service data. Changes in the knowledge attitudes and practices will be gleaned through an online survey with 500 individuals from each professional group at baseline and 12 months after members have joined AusCAPPs; and experiences of the AusCAPPS Network will be evaluated using interviews with the project team plus a convenience sample of 20 intervention participants from each professional group. The project is underpinned by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework, and a realist framework will inform analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (No. 28002). Dissemination will occur through KEWs, presentations, publications and domestic and international networks. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000655741.
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 | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.007 |
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".