Changes in local access to mifepristone dispensed by community pharmacies for medication abortion in Ontario: a population-based repeated cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although mifepristone for medication abortion has been available in Canada since a regulatory change in 2017, leading to its rapid uptake, the effects of this availability on regional access to abortion are unknown. We sought to examine how community pharmacy dispensation of mifepristone affected distribution of abortion services over time in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We used linked health administrative data to identify a cohort of all medication and procedural abortions provided in Ontario from 2017 to 2022, defined by outpatient mifepristone dispensations and abortion billing, diagnostic, and procedure codes. We evaluated changes over time in the annual proportion of community pharmacies that dispensed mifepristone and the availability and distribution of medication and procedural abortion services across geographic regions, defined by postal code forward sortation areas. RESULTS: In 2017, 2% of Ontario pharmacies filled 1 or more prescriptions for mifepristone, which increased to 20% in 2022. In 2017, few regions contained a mifepristone-dispensing pharmacy (19%) or procedural abortion service (18%). By 2022, most regions had local access to a mifepristone-dispensing pharmacy (77%), with geographically distributed abortion services across Ontario. Although only 37% of abortion service users lived in a region with either a mifepristone-dispensing pharmacy or procedural provider in 2017, this increased to 91% by 2022. INTERPRETATION: Access to medication abortion across Ontario increased substantially within 5 years of mifepristone's availability as a normally prescribed and dispensed medication. This regulatory approach appears successful for achieving widespread access to local abortion services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".