Knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding emergency contraception pills among adult students within the college of medical sciences, University of Guyana, from August to September 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs), commonly known as the morning-after pill, are used to prevent unplanned pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, sexual assault, or failure of regular contraception. This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of ECPs among adult students from the College of Medical Sciences (CoMS). Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted at the University of Guyana, Turkeyen Campus, between August and September 2024. Data was collected through a structured electronic questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive methods, and the chi-square test for statistical significance. Results: Out of 321 respondents, 76.1% were females and 23.6% were males, with a mean age of 23 years. 57% were from region 4, and 69.8% were Christians. The study found that the majority of students (86.6%) had adequate overall knowledge about ECPs, but there were notable gaps in understanding specific aspects, including mechanisms of action, side effects, and optimal timeframe for use. The study also found that attitudes toward ECPs were mixed, with a significant proportion of students holding negative attitudes (51.7%). However, the majority of students (95.5%) reported that ECPs were easy/very easy to obtain, and most students reported that they were somewhat effective (68.8%). Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of targeted educational interventions to address knowledge gaps and misconceptions regarding ECPs. The findings have implications for the development of comprehensive sexual health education programs and policies aimed at promoting safe sexual practices and reproductive health among university students in Guyana.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".