Nurse practitioner medication abortion providers in Canada: results from a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2017, nurse practitioners (NPs) became the first non-physician healthcare providers authorised to independently provide medication abortion (MA) in Canada. We aimed to report on demographic and clinical characteristics of NPs providing mifepristone/misoprostol MA in Canada and to identify context-specific barriers and enablers to NP provision of mifepristone/misoprostol MA in Canada among MA providers and non-providers. METHODS: From August 2020 to February 2021, we invited Canadian NPs to complete a national, web-based, bilingual (English/French) survey. The survey was distributed through national and provincial nursing associations and national abortion health professional organisations. We collected demographic and clinical care characteristics and present descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses to compare the experiences of NP providers and non-providers of MA. RESULTS: The 181 respondents represented all Canadian provinces and territories. Sixty-five NPs (36%) had provided MA at the time of the survey and 116 (64%) had not. Nearly half (47%) of respondents worked in rural or remote communities and 81% in primary care clinics. Significant barriers impacting non-providers' abilities to provide MA included limited proximity to a pharmacy that dispensed mifepristone/misoprostol, few experienced abortion providers in their community of practice, poor access to procedural abortion services, policy restrictions in NPs' places of employment, and no access to clinical mentorship. Some 98% of NPs providing MA services had never encountered anti-choice protest activity. CONCLUSIONS: NPs appear prepared and able to provide MA, yet barriers remain, particularly for NPs in smaller, lower-resourced communities. Our findings inform the development of supports for NPs in this new practice to improve abortion access in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".