Qualitative Study of Reasons for Discontinuation of Injectable\nContraceptives Among Users and Salient Reference Groups in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discontinuation of contraception is a major problem in Kenya. Even\nthough they want to space or limit their births, over a quarter of\ncontraceptive injectable users discontinue use of the method within 12\nmonths of beginning use. Fourteen focus group discussions were\nconducted in Nyando District, Kenya among current contraceptive\ninjectable users and their salient reference groups (e.g. husbands,\nmothers-in-law, community leaders, service providers) to understand why\nwomen discontinue using contraceptives (with a focus on injectables).\nThematic analysis was performed using NVivo 8 software. Discontinuation\nof contraceptives in Nyando District occurs for logistical, social and\nmedical reasons. Common reasons for discontinuation include side\neffects, husbands' opposition, provider and/or clinic restrictions,\nmisconceptions about injectables, stock outs, and lack of cash to pay\nfor family planning services. This research expands the literature by\nexamining social influences on discontinuation by incorporating the\nperspectives of salient reference groups. The results suggest points of\nintervention for increasing continuation in this community and similar\nresource-poor settings.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".