Changes in Canadian contraceptive choices: results of a national survey on hormonal contraceptive use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960, Canadians have been offered a number of different options for hormonal contraceptives, yet oral contraceptives remain the most popular methods. Research from other countries indicates this may be shifting, but the last comprehensive survey of Canadian hormonal contraceptive usage was published in 2009. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine current hormonal contraceptive usage among pre-menopausal Canadians. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to pre-menopausal females aged 19-49 years via a third-party survey company. The survey included questions on respondents' demographics and current and past hormonal contraceptive use. Prevalence of current hormonal contraceptive use was calculated by age. Chi-squared tests were conducted to determine whether there was an association between contraceptive choice and various demographic categories. RESULTS: Responses of 2306 female Canadians (age 33.4 ± 8.1 years) were analyzed and 29% of these respondents were currently using hormonal contraceptives. The most common choices were oral contraceptives (56.4%) and intrauterine device (IUD) (28.4%). Over 30% of hormonal contraceptive users were currently using a long-acting reversible contraceptive method. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate a change in hormonal contraception use, notably an increase in the use of hormonal IUDs from 4 to 28% among Canadian hormonal contraceptive users over the last 15 years. This study also shows a high prevalence of alternative contraceptive options that may influence hormone levels differently than oral forms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".