Contraception today and family planning: a comprehensive review and position statement on the ethical, medical, and social dimensions of modern contraception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a society whose needs are constantly changing, family planning plays a central role for women, men, and sustainable development. This comprehensive review and position statement summarises the proceedings of a meeting on contraception held in Rome in March 2024, supported by major scientific societies in the field. The aim is to inform the medical community about current medical and ethical issues of contraception use. First, the review addresses the complex ethical, religious, and social dimensions of contraceptive use and access; second, it provides a comprehensive analysis of traditional and modern contraceptive methods, discussing their safety and effectiveness; third, it examines current knowledge about male hormonal contraception. When prescribing a contraceptive method, medical indications or contraindications must be integrated to women's religious beliefs, the geopolitical context in which they live, the risk of violence, their need for self-determination and their right to make decisions for themselves. If a partner is involved, the couple's dynamics and shared needs must be considered. Healthcare providers are responsible for providing them with all the information they need to make informed choices, while ensuring individual autonomy. This position statement provides recommendations on how to guide contraceptive choice and identifies knowledge gaps about contraception today.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".