The Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Practice Nurses in the Provision of Medication Abortion: A Cross‐Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine practice nurse knowledge, attitudes, and practices about medication abortion in Australia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: A national online survey was conducted from July to December 2021. Nurses working in general practice were recruited using convenience sampling. Data collected included demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practices in abortion care. Analyses used included descriptive statistics and Poisson regression. RESULTS: From 489 responses, knowledge about medication abortion, its provision, and efficacy was low. Although many respondents felt it was acceptable to assist in medication abortion, few indicated involvement. Those with advanced qualifications had greater perceived knowledge of abortion counselling. Respondent involvement in medication abortion was more likely if they had worked in general practice for a long time, their primary place of work was outside of general practice, or had advanced nursing qualifications. CONCLUSIONS: Given their role in the community, there is an opportunity to better utilise practice nurses for abortion care. Incorporation of abortion into the nursing curriculum and routine practice, including supportive funding mechanisms for care, is needed. IMPLICATIONS: Low knowledge and a lack of practice nurses providing abortion services adversely impact patient access. IMPACT: Practice nurse provision of medication abortion has not yet been optimised. While practice nurses reported acceptability to provide abortion care, this could be enhanced with funding, education, and service normalisation. These results will inform policy makers, educators, patients, general practices, and nurses to support patient access to abortion care. Incorporating abortion care into nursing curriculum and practice will support women's access to these services. REPORTING METHOD: CHERRIES guideline. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Professional groups, family planning organisations, industry, and government grant partners supported the study's recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622000655741.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".