“We wish we had the option”: a qualitative study of women’s perspectives and experiences with contraception in a provincial prison in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that women who are incarcerated desire access to contraception while incarcerated, and that this need is not currently being met. Our objective in this study was to explore the perspectives and experiences of women in prisons regarding contraception and contraception access using data from focus groups with women in a provincial prison. We analyzed focus group data collected in a provincial prison in Ontario, Canada using content analysis and a constructivist epistemology. RESULTS: We conducted three focus groups, each approximately one hour in length. Discussions revolved around (1) knowledge and decision making about contraception, (2) accessing contraception, and (3) ideas for increasing access to contraception in the prison setting. Decision making about contraception was mainly related to concerns about side effects, consistent access to care, impacts on future fertility, and autonomy around decision-making. Participants discussed a wide range of experiences with contraception. Ideas for increasing access to contraception included information sessions, inclusion of discussions about contraception as a component of admission and release planning, and time spent in prison as a crucial juncture for decision-making about contraception. CONCLUSIONS: More qualitative research is needed to better understand the needs of women in prisons related to contraception. The findings of this study suggest that programs should focus on consistency and continuity of access to care, education opportunities, and integration of discussions about contraception into official admission and release procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".