Use of Sexual and Reproductive Health Services Among Women Living in Rural and Urban Oregon: Impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: We compared the use of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services for Medicaid-enrolled women of reproductive age (WRA) living in Oregon by urban/rural status and examined the effect of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion on the use of SRH services for these women. Methods: We linked Oregon Medicaid enrollment files and claims for the years 2008–2016 to identify 392,111 WRA. Outcome measures included receipt of five key SRH services. The main independent variables were urban/rural status (urban, large rural cities, and small rural towns) and an indicator for the post-Medicaid expansion time period (2014–2016). We performed (conditional) fixed-effects logistic regression and multiple-group interrupted time-series analyses. Results: Women living in small rural towns were less likely than women living in urban areas to receive well-woman visits (odds ratio [OR] = 0.87; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] [0.80–0.94]), sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening (OR = 0.81; 95% CI [0.72–0.90]), and pap tests (OR = 0.91; 95% CI [0.84–0.99]). Women living in large rural cities were less likely than women living in urban areas to receive STI screening (OR = 0.91; 95% CI [0.84–0.98]). Following the implementation of ACA Medicaid expansion, the average number of all five SRH services increased for all women. With the exception of contraceptive services, the average number of SRH services examined increased more for urban women than for women living in small rural towns. Conclusions: Although Medicaid expansion contributed to increased use of SRH services for all WRA, the policy was unsuccessful in reducing disparities in access to SRH services for WRA living in rural areas compared with urban areas.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".