Hormonal contraception and thrombosis: Identifying the gaps in knowledge among females in post-secondary education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the current level of knowledge about hormonal contraception among young women so they may be better informed about the risks and various choices available to them regarding hormonal contraception (HC). Methods: In an online survey-based study, data was analyzed from the anonymous responses of 675 female participants aged 18-30 years in various academic programs at two post-secondary institutions in Kingston, Ontario. Surveys explored demographics, use/type/duration of hormonal contraception, and knowledge of HC and thrombosis. Kruskal Wallis test and Spearman Correlation were used to determine differences in knowledge level about contraceptives across age groups, education levels, as well as use/type/duration of HC. Results: 476 participants were users of HC (264 > 1 year) and 199 were non-HC users. 370 participants have a high school diploma. The knowledge level of HC risks was associated with duration of use and overall knowledge of thrombosis and HC. The knowledge level of thrombosis was correlated with duration of use, education level, and age. Participants with higher level of education or those that have been using HC for 5 years or longer had an increased knowledge surrounding thrombosis. Participants aged 24 and older had a higher knowledge of thrombosis than that of participants younger than 24. Overall, the data was used to generate a simple infographic to further educate women in this regard. Conclusion: Misconceptions remain among young women concerning benefits and risks of HC which can be addressed by formal education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".