Contraceptive interference in young people’s intimate relationships: An exploratory narrative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contraceptive interference is enacted by an intimate partner and aims to prevent the effective use of contraception or barrier methods, undermining the other partner’s choices. Contraceptive interference poses increased risks to the sexual and reproductive health of individuals who experience it. However, little is known about how young people in Canada experience it. The objectives of this article are to explore the various forms of contraceptive interference, identify the perpetrators’ control strategies, and document the effects of these behaviours on the contraceptive autonomy among young people. Through individual interviews, sixteen individuals, aged 17–23, shared instances of contraceptive interference experienced within their intimate relationships. Exploratory narrative analysis reveals three metanarratives where participants (a) feel unheard in their contraceptive choices due to their partner’s negligence and disengagement, (b) feel unconsidered as their partner exhibits entitlement and imposes their preferences, and (c) feel trapped by their partner’s coercive behaviours and restrictions. The results underscore the need to continue the conceptual and empirical exploration of contraceptive interference. A better understanding of contraceptive interference by health professionals would help provide appropriate support to young people. Sex education should also address this issue to encourage respect for others’ preferences regarding safer sex.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".