MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412585164 · doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2025.07.005

Provision of Person-Centered Contraceptive Care to Adolescents: Results From a National Survey of Family Planning Clinics

2025· article· en· W4412585164 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jennifer Mueller, Tamrin Ann Tchou, Madeleine Haas, Priscille Osias, Laura Lindberg, Alicia VandeVusse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReproductive Health and Contraception
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuttmacher InstituteOntario Physiotherapy AssociationOffice of Population AffairsU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineFamily planningNational Survey of Family GrowthFamily medicinePopulationEnvironmental healthResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Access to contraceptive services is essential for adolescents to pursue sexual and reproductive well-being. Publicly supported family planning clinics are critical reproductive health safety net providers and are an essential source of contraceptive care for adolescents. Contraceptive care for adolescents should be centered on their needs to ensure reproductive autonomy. METHODS: We fielded a national survey of publicly supported family planning clinics in the United States and conducted a cross-sectional analysis to understand the extent to which these clinics provide contraceptive services that are adolescent-centered. We also examined differences by clinic type and by state policies on adolescents' consent to contraceptive care. RESULTS: Many clinics have taken strides to provide adolescent-centered contraceptive care, but gaps in this care still exist, particularly among federally qualified health centers. CONCLUSION: Gaps in the provision of adolescent-centered care should be addressed to ensure that adolescent populations are receiving high quality 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric and Adolescent GynecologySame topicReproductive Health and ContraceptionFrench-language works237,207