Would love more demographic data on who applied and who was admitted (in aggregate) if you’re willing to share.
Paula Amato
Editing my post as I may have come across too critical. Very supportive of this work and just trying to give helpful feedback.
Exciting work! Where can I find details about the survey—methodology and results? What contraception methods were most commonly used and how was use assessed? What was the continuation rate? Was there any impact on unplanned pregnancy rate?
Thanks for posting. Appreciate the response and analysis. Would love to see efforts to increase women attendance and participation at EAG and in EA in general. Also curious about the age breakdown of EAG applicants vs attendees.
I’m glad to see SCD on the list. But I feel compelled to point out that SCD is 100% preventable with carrier genetic screening and IVF/PGT-M (pre-implantation genetic testing). Thus any strategy to address SCD should definitely include increasing access to IVF/PGT in low resource countries.
Thanks. In reviewing the survey methodology more carefully, I see the data comes from cross-sectional survey over 3 months at yearly time points Therefore impossible to say when during the year the increased use began. But as Nick and the post clearly state, if this was the only major intervention during 2021, it’s reasonable to assume that at least some of the increase was due to the FEM campaign.
Right, my question is how can you infer causality from the data?
Thanks for the link. So the PMA survey shows a significant increase in modern contraceptive prevalence rate starting in Feb ’21 - a full 7 months BEFORE the start of the FEM radio campaign—without any appreciable change on slope of the increase after the beginning of the FEM campaign (shaded area on the graph). How are you attributing ANY increase directly due to the FEM campaign itself? And any thoughts about what led to the increased rate preceding the start of the campaign?
Does EAG publish statistics on admission rates? Is there an age and/or gender bias?
Curious what people on this site think about Timnit Gebru’s (a person I genuinely respect) criticism of EA as a “white savior, colonial, incredibly well funded (of course) ideology, driving so much of “AGI” discourse in “AI”, with strands of it intersecting with literal eugenics”?
Thank you for writing this! As someone interested in exploring opportunities in biosecurity, I found it very helpful.
Hi Everyone, I’m a reproductive endocrinologist and Professor of OB/GYN at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, OR. My research focuses on innovative assisted reproductive technologies for the treatment of age-related infertility/ovarian aging and prevention of heritable genetic diseases (germline gene therapy). I am most interested in reproductive ethics. Looking forward to learning from you all. Thanks, Elika!
Fair enough. Was going mostly from what I’ve read in their post and on their website in addition to the RP report. I don’t disagree. Although, some international organizations partnering with local public health departments in LMICs have a decent track record in this regard.
“intervention period indicated by shaded area”?
Doctors also have the ability to contribute to health policy in various contexts which can impact many, many more people in addition to those they impact with direct care.
Doctors also have the ability to contribute to health policy in various contexts which can impact many, many more people in addition to those they impact with direct care.
Eli, has CEA looked at their admission rates according to age and gender? Are you willing to share this data? It would be interesting to see if there is any systemic bias in the admissions process.
Is there a way to get automatically notified regarding a new post?
Consider hiring an outside firm to do an independent review.