Navigating abortion in adolescence : a narrative exploration of experiences and counselling perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current research suggests adolescents navigating abortion face a complex landscape marked by challenges related to access and stigmatization. Yet, abortion research has been conducted with little consideration for this life stage within a Canadian context. More specifically, no study to date has explored the personal accounts of young adults who can reflect with insight on their abortion experience. The present study investigated this phenomenon using narrative inquiry. The primary research question for this study asked: What narratives do young adults construct about their experience of abortion during adolescence? By extending this exploration to include the perspectives of abortion counsellors involved in adolescent reproductive healthcare, this study endeavored to provide a comprehensive view of the experience. Thus, the secondary research question asked: What narratives do abortion counsellors construct about their experience working with adolescent populations? Most of the research on adolescent abortion is quantitative and few studies have utilized a narrative research design. Narrative inquiry suggests stories are an entry point through which experiences are interpreted and made meaningful. Three young adults and two abortion counsellors were interviewed and a thematic analysis was conducted within both groups using Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2019) six-step process. Five main themes emerged from young adults' experiences: (a) Certainty and Immediacy of the Decision; (b) Logistical Hurdles; (c) Enduring Pain and Resilience; (d) Navigating Disclosure Within Support Systems; and (e) Experience as a Catalyst for Advocacy. Four additional themes emerged from abortion counsellors’ experiences: (a) Confronting Stigma and Anti-Abortion Discourse; (b) Beyond Misconceptions; (c) Private Paths; and (d) Empowered Choice. This study contributes to the academic discourse on adolescent reproductive health and provides valuable information for healthcare providers and counselling psychology practitioners about the multifaceted nature of adolescent abortion experiences.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".