128 Supporting contraceptive decision making through partnerships with settlement service providers and newcomer youth: results from the ask us project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Despite being recognized as a human right by the United Nations, contraception remains inaccessible for many newcomer youth in Canada. Through this national qualitative investigation, called ‘Ask Us’, we investigated the experiences, attitudes, and decision-making needs of newcomer youth in Canada. Methods This study was co-designed with youth patient partners and settlement service providers (SSP) and guided by constructivist grounded theory. Youth peer researchers conducted national, community-based outreach to advertise the study with underserved youth. We conducted one-on-one videoconference interviews with newcomer youth of all genders, aged 15 to 25, living across Canada. After transcribing audio-recorded interviews, we completed an inductive analysis to identify youth’s decisional needs for contraception choices. We then conducted a deductive analysis using Levesque’s Patient-centred Access to Healthcare framework, identifying opportunities to implement shared decision-making interventions. Results Analysis of 14 newcomer youth interviews resulted in three themes about youth’s contraception decisional needs: a) Sex is a shameful thing that we don’t talk about; b) Preferring discreet contraception options that allow youth to ‘Grab n Go’; and c) I think you learn from and trust your friends. We also identified that youths’ ‘Ability to Seek and Pay’, and ‘Ability to Perceive and Engage’ with contraception prescribers in the health system constrained their ability to make values-congruent choices. Discussion Newcomer youth’s perspectives highlight that stigma, confidentiality, and social influences are key factors in their contraception choices. Our results indicate the need to provide newcomer youth with tailored information, and decision-making resources for contraception. Involving SSPs in interprofessional shared decision-making may further support newcomer youth in navigating the healthcare system. Conclusion Shared decision-making interventions for newcomer youth may be tailored to address issues of stigma, confidentiality, and the social influence of peers on contraception choices.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".