Abortion and contraception within prison health care: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although abortion was completely decriminalized in Canada 36 years ago, barriers to pregnancy prevention and termination persist across the country, such as travel and information gaps. Research demonstrates incarcerated people face barriers to family planning care, yet there is no systematic data collection of sexual and reproductive health experiences and outcomes among incarcerated people in Canada. The aim of this study was to explore family planning care experiences among women and gender diverse people who have experienced incarceration in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative community-based research study using focus groups for data collection and reflexive thematic analysis to generate key themes. Our study team included members with lived experience of incarceration. We conducted recruitment in partnership with community organizations. We asked about accessing abortion and contraception while incarcerated and on release. RESULTS: We conducted six focus groups with 35 recently incarcerated participants. Five themes emerged: (1) Competing health needs; (2) Institutional barriers to care; (3) Mistreatment and unethical care; (4) Health knowledge gaps; and (5) Challenges to care-seeking in community. CONCLUSION: People in prison experience concurrent unmet health needs that crowd out sexual and reproductive health. Prison procedures and perceived unethical professional behaviours impinge care-seeking. Information about abortion and contraception is not readily available in prison. Barriers to care persist upon release. Family planning professionals may improve care for people who experience incarceration by recognizing concurrent mental health needs; anticipating impact of prior negative experiences on care-seeking; challenging limitations to health education in prison; and addressing post-release challenges for patients.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".