The experiences of family planning health professionals providing care to incarcerated patients: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although Canada completely decriminalized abortion in 1988, barriers persist, and people experiencing incarceration may face additional challenges. Family planning health professionals (FPHP) in the community may provide care to incarcerated people. This study is the first to examine their experiences and needs. METHODS: We used a community-based approach to this qualitative study and conducted interviews and focus groups with FPHP across Canada from multiple disciplines. Experts on the research team with lived experience of incarceration enhanced relevance of research questions and approaches. RESULTS: We spoke with thirty participants from eight provinces, including nurses, nurse practitioners, family medicine and obstetrics-gynecology physicians, and social workers. Analysis generated three themes: Managing Multiple Systems; The Prison in the Clinic; and Future Recommendations, and six subthemes, A Firewall of Secrecy, Logistical Hoop-Jumping, Surveillance by Correctional Officers, Health Professional Strategies, A Policy for Legitimacy and We Need This in Our Training. FPHP described commitment to providing incarcerated patients equivalent care to that provided to people in community, but faced challenges with communication, preserving patient dignity, privacy, confidentiality, and safety. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate FPHP feel ethics and safety in jeopardy when caring for incarcerated patients. FPHP express needs for improved education about roles, and for supportive professional position statements or clinical workplace policies to buttress efforts at patient advocacy. No FPHP organization in Canada has a position on care of incarcerated pregnant people. Professional position statements and workplace policies could support confident care. FPHP training should include information about incarcerated peoples' needs.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".