Assessing the Provision of Person-Centered Contraceptive Care at Publicly Supported Clinics Providing Contraceptive Services in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to understand the extent to which the contraceptive care provided at publicly supported family planning clinics in the United States aligns with aspects of person-centered care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study with a national sample of U.S. family planning clinics between November 2022 and December 2023. We measured person-centeredness by the scope of services offered, including the extent to which providers solicit and prioritize patients' contraceptive intentions, preferences, and goals; the dispensing protocols for various contraceptive methods; and the availability of social services such as intimate partner violence screening and housing insecurity support. We fielded an online survey to a sample of 2,146 clinics, and our analytic sample was 422 clinics. RESULTS: Our results highlight that most publicly supported family planning clinics provide contraception using counseling protocols that support patient-centeredness, such as assessing patients' contraceptive preferences during contraceptive counseling. However, we found statistically significant variation by clinic type within many of these measures, with a higher proportion of Planned Parenthood clinics following patient-centered protocols than other clinic types, particularly federally qualified health centers and community health centers. CONCLUSIONS: Publicly supported family planning clinics provide contraception using some person-centered care protocols, although there is room for improvement. Furthermore, person-centered practices vary by clinic type. More research should be done with patients to assess additional elements of person-centered contraceptive care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".