Canadian service providers' perspectives on reproductive coercion and abuse: a participatory action research to address their needs and support their actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive coercion and abuse (RCA) is a form of violence that affects sexual and reproductive health. Women and individuals who experienced RCA in an intimate relationship frequently consult service providers (SPs), such as health professionals or violence counselors. The objective of this article, which is the result of a participative action research project targeting RCA perpetrated by in an intimate partner, is twofold: (1) to better understand the practices as well as the barriers and facilitators encountered by SPs and (2) to develop information and awareness tools with them that meet their needs. To this end, we first held focus groups with 31 SPs. The use of thematic analysis revealed intervention strategies that focus on caring and listening, identifying signs of RCA, and creating a safe environment for disclosure. Their practices also focused on harm-reduction strategies and effective referrals. Despite the importance they gave to this issue, lack of time, inappropriate settings, and inadequate training hindered them from intervening effectively with individuals who were victims of RCA. They also indicated the need for easy-to-follow practice guidelines and patient education tools. Based on these findings and the best practices identified in the grey and scientific literature, we developed a practice guide for SPs and a booklet on RCA. The development of these guide and booklets involved a lot of back and forth to meet the needs expressed by the community and health professionals.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".