MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408110717 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(25)00010-6

Abortion care in Alberta, Canada, from 2012 to 2023: a population-based, cross-sectional analysis of use and geographical access

2025· article· en· W4408110717 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Erin A. Brennand, B Huang, Natalie V. Scime, J.M.M. Chin A Paw, Erin Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersWomen and Gender Equality CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta HealthGovernment of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
KeywordsCross-sectional studyAbortionMedicinePopulationGeographyDemographyFamily medicineEnvironmental healthPregnancySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Equitable access to abortion care remains a challenge in public health. Current Canadian abortion reporting overlooks modern practices such as mifepristone medication abortion and has no access and equity metrics. We aimed to comprehensively analyse abortion care provision in Alberta (the fourth largest province in Canada, home to more than 4 million people) focusing on temporal trends in annual abortion rates and access disparities. METHODS: In this population-based, repeated cross-sectional study using linked administrative databases (Practitioner Claims, Discharge Abstract Database, National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, and Pharmaceutical Information Network) in Alberta, Canada, we examined abortion use across the province over a 10-year period. Our data included all females of reproductive age (12-49 years) who received abortion care from Jan 1, 2012, to June 30, 2023. The primary outcome was abortion rate, calculated as the annual number of abortions per 1000 females of reproductive age (15-49 years), trimming data for those younger than 15 years. We descriptively analysed abortions (procedural, medication, and induction of labour) using temporal and geospatial analysis by Alberta's five geographical zones and 35 subzones. FINDINGS: During the study period, 130 755 abortions occurred in Alberta, of which 120 326 (92·0%) were procedural (118 063 [98·1%] of 120 326 first trimester; 2263 [1·9%] second trimester), 7395 (5·7%) were medication abortions, and 3034 (2·3%) were induction of labour. Abortion declined steadily between 2012 and 2023, with a change of -0·42 abortions per 1000 reproductive-aged females per year (95% CI -0·49 to -0·36). Medication abortion increased following the introduction of mifepristone and comprised 1489 (13·8%) of 10 765 abortions by 2022. Nearly all (8440 [99·7%] of 8462) procedural abortions in 2022 were provided in Edmonton and Calgary. 14 882 (11·5%) of 129 527 individuals accessing abortion in Alberta travelled more than 3 h from home to receive care; 18 864 (14·6%) travelled more than 200 km. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that annual rates of abortion in Alberta are declining; however, overall access to abortion care has minimally improved in the past decade. Abortion in Alberta remains highly procedural and concentrated in Alberta's two major cities, resulting in poor access outside metropolitan centres. Mismatch between use of abortion care and local provision of care results in substantial travel. Policy should focus on expansion of patient-preferred, evidence-based medication abortion services. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Women and Gender Equality 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207