Provision of contraceptive prescriptions following medication abortion in Australian general practice: A National Longitudinal Study using MedicineInsight, 2013–2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess longitudinal trends in contraceptive prescribing following medication abortion (MA) in general practice. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients aged 14-49 years who were provided MA in the Australian general practice setting between 2013 and 2022. Data, including prescribed medications, were sourced from the national general practice dataset, MedicineInsight. The primary outcome was the proportion prescribed a contraceptive within 60 days of MA. RESULTS: Among 4543 undergoing MA, 1841 (40.5%) received a contraceptive prescription within 60 days, with a modest increase over time from 32.0% in 2013-41.3% in 2022. Among those prescribed contraceptives, the most common types were the combined oral contraceptive pill (34.0%), levonorgestrel intrauterine device (27.0%), implant (24.6%) and injection (11.2%), with 931 (50.6%) of prescriptions provided on the same day as MA. The likelihood of receiving a contraceptive prescription was higher among those aged 14-19 years (RR 1.40; 1.21-1.62) and 20-24 years (RR 1.20; 1.08-1.34) compared with the 30-34-year-old group, and in those who were existing patients than new to the practice at time of MA provision (RR 1.15; 1.02-1.31). A positive linear relationship was observed between increasing socioeconomic status and increasing remoteness and higher rates of contraceptive prescription (both p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of patients undergoing MA in the general practice setting are provided a contraceptive prescription within 60 days of MA, most commonly the combined oral contraceptive pill. A most increase in contraceptive provision is evident over time, with provision varying significantly according to contraceptive type and patient characteristics. IMPLICATIONS: Further research is required to understand underlying reasons for observed variation in contraceptive provision following MA in the general practice setting to ensure all individuals are being provided access to appropriate contraceptive information and services as part of high-quality abortion care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".