ArticleAmerican journal of public health2006
Barriers to contraceptive use in product labeling and practice guidelines.
Article in American journal of public health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computer-assisted provision of hormonal contraception in acute care settings.Contraception · 2013Trial
- Demand- and supply-side factors associated with the use of contraceptive methods in Pakistan: a comparative study of demographic and health surveys, 1990-2018.BMC women's health · 2020Article
- Mixed-methods study on pharmacies as contraception providers to Kenyan young people: who uses them and why?BMJ open · 2020Article
- Impact of a social franchise intervention program on the adoption of long and short acting family planning methods in hard to reach communities in Myanmar.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- "Doctors are in the best position to know…": The perceived medicalization of contraceptive method choice in Ibadan and Kaduna, Nigeria.Patient education and counseling · 2016Article
- Determinants of contraceptives use amongst youth: an exploratory study with family planning service providers in Karachi Pakistan.Global journal of health science · 2013Article
- Use of simulated patients to evaluate combined oral contraceptive dispensing practices of community pharmacists.PloS one · 2013Article
- Is effective contraceptive use conceived prenatally in Florida? The association between prenatal contraceptive counseling and postpartum contraceptive use.Maternal and child health journal · 2012Article
- Accuracy of self-screening for contraindications to combined oral contraceptive use.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2008Article
- Evaluating the practice of Iranian community pharmacists regarding oral contraceptive pills using simulated patients.Pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many contraceptives are encumbered with potentially unnecessary restrictions on their use. Indeed, fear of side effects, fostered by alarmist labeling, is a leading reason that women do not use contraceptives. In the United States, hormonal methods currently require a prescription, although research suggests that women can adequately screen themselves for contraindications, manage side effects, and determine an appropriate initiation date, leaving little need for routine direct physician involvement. Sizing, spermicidal use, and length-of-wear limits burden users of cervical barriers and may be unnecessary. Despite recent changes in the labeling of intrauterine devices, clinicians commonly restrict use of this method and in some countries may limit the types of providers authorized to insert them. Although in some cases additional research is necessary, existing data indicate that evidence-based demedicalization of contraceptive provision could reduce costs and improve access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.