Contraception: A gendered burden? A mixed methods exploration of experiences around contraception responsibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initially designed to promote sex-reproductive autonomy, contraception has historically focused on the bodies of women and people who can become pregnant (PBP), resulting in an unequal distribution of pregnancy prevention responsibilities between the sexes, now referred to as the “contraceptive burden.” This article explores two aspects of this burden from the PBP perspective: the sharing of contraceptive responsibilities between intimate partners, and the emancipation of gender scripts in fertility management. Mixed data from two separate research projects included an online questionnaire (quantitative component; n = 367) and focus groups (qualitative component; 34 people in 12 small groups). Targeting PBP aged 18 to 35 with diverse sexual orientations and relationship statuses, recruitment for both samples spanned posts on our lab’s and our partners’ social media pages (Facebook, Instagram), and postings in university and local Montreal businesses, encouraging a varied socio-demographic sample. Descriptive and reflexive thematic analyses were carried out. The quantitative results indicate a gap between the egalitarian values of PBPs and the reality of their contraceptive work, highlighting the complexity of power dynamics in intimate relationships. Qualitative findings bring out a sense of injustice linked to this disproportionate burden, influenced by systemic factors such as the gender imbalance in contraceptive options. The discussion focuses on the tensions in the distribution of contraceptive responsibilities between PBPs and their partners, with their economic and social implications. The article calls for a more holistic approach to the problem of contraceptive burden, integrating interpersonal and societal perspectives. It stresses the importance of reproductive agency and invites us to reflect on people’s satisfaction with the management of their fertility. Recommendations in the areas of education, awareness-raising, diversity, and accessibility of contraceptive options are put forward, aiming to improve conditions of gender justice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".