A Qualitative Exploration of Past Family Planning Counselling of Adolescent and Young Mothers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study explores the family planning counselling that adolescents receive during pregnancy care, with the aim of identifying those factors that make counselling effective or ineffective. Methods: The study population consisted of ten adolescents who had recently given birth and ten health care providers. Adolescents were recruited using posters; providers, by email. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted and analyzed in keeping with grounded theory. Analysis consisted of open coding (identification of initial concepts), axial coding (drawing connections between repetitive and similar concepts), and selective coding (clustering of categories to identify themes). Results: The adolescent participants desired detailed information about pregnancy and motherhood, were challenged by the disruptive effects of pregnancy, and were strongly reliant on nonmedical support people. Our participants described that the adolescent-provider relationship was strengthened when providers sought to empower adolescents and to provide a balance of support and independence. Judgment and bias interfered with relationship building. Postpartum continuity with the pregnancy care provider and a positive relationship with the family physician were both highly desirable yet highly variable. In general, the adolescents found family planning counselling an awkward and intimate undertaking and preferred providers to slowly progress towards explicit counselling. The adolescents who opted not to initiate postpartum contraception still found the counselling process informative and beneficial. Conclusion: Effective family planning counselling is not information driven but rather gradual, individualized, and context focused. This article has been peer reviewed.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".