The role of doulas and community birth workers in abortion and contraception care: An international scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Equitable and safe access to abortion and contraception is essential to protecting reproductive autonomy. Despite this, barriers to access remain. Nonclinical support people, may be able to facilitate access to abortion and contraception services and care, but evidence on the scope and efficacy of doulas in abortion and contraception care is lacking. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize what is known about the role of doulas in abortion and contraception care. STUDY DESIGN: We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A clinical librarian performed an initial search of all relevant databases. Three reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts for assessment against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The populations of interest included doulas, and/or untrained birth attendants and birth companions, and patients who use doula services. The concept of interest was the doula and the context was access to abortion or contraception. RESULTS: Our review identified relevant studies conducted in different countries, published between 1976 and 2023. Studies broadly focused on three key themes: doulas performing procedural abortions, doulas supporting abortion care, and doulas supporting contraception. Outcomes of interest included client outcomes, barriers to access, doula training, and attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Doulas have the potential to improve client satisfaction and mitigate barriers to accessing abortion and contraception services. Further research is needed to identify the training needs of doulas, the potential for their integration into interdisciplinary care teams, and the role in supporting medication abortion.
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 | 0.014 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".