Can youth-engaged research facilitate equitable access to contraception in Canada? The qualitative study protocol for the Ask Us project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is little to no evidence in Canada on the barriers that youth face when accessing contraception. We seek to identify the contraception access, experiences, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and needs of youth in Canada, from the perspectives of youth and youth service providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, mixed-methods, integrated knowledge mobilisation study, the Ask Us project, will involve a national sample of youth, healthcare and social service providers, and policy makers recruited via a novel relational mapping and outreach approach led by youth. Phase I will centre the voices of youth and their service providers through in-depth one-on-one interviews. We will explore the factors influencing youth access to contraception, theoretically guided by Levesque's Access to Care framework. Phase II will focus on the cocreation and evaluation of knowledge translation products (youth stories) with youth, service providers, and policy makers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from the University of British Columbia's Research Ethics Board (H21-01091). Full open-access publication of the work will be sought in an international peer-reviewed journal. Findings will be disseminated to youth and service providers through social media, newsletters, and communities of practice, and to policy makers through invited evidence briefs and face-to-face presentations.
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 | 0.117 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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".