{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014655172413793103, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008620689655172414, 'mean_word_length': 5.309782608695652, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Teenage pregnancy rates and the age and sex of general practitioners. Sex and age discrimination in recruitment for general practice is not justified by teenage pregnancy survey.

This paper enumerates the methodological problems found in the study on teenage pregnancy rate conducted by Hippisley-Cox and colleagues. The author identified four major problems: 1) the failure of the researchers to consider the importance of a doctors educational background and family planning certificates in measuring a doctors skills in providing contraception; 2) noncompliance with the definition of teenage conceptions set by the Health of the Nation which included girls aged 13-15 years -- instead the study included all pregnancies in girls aged 19 years or under; 3) failure of the researcher to consider the possibility of pregnancy termination performed outside the Trent region; 4) the Townsend score used to adjust the incidence rate ratio for the presence of female doctors cannot correct the absence of good general education associated with deferring pregnancy. Even if the conclusions were valid the clinical significance for individual practices is minimal.