ArticleAtencion primaria2007
[Emergency contraception: evaluation of women's understanding of it, a requisite for the effectiveness of the treatment].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Characterization of the Use of Emergency Contraception from Sentinel Pharmacies in a Region of Southern Europe.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate how much women who attend primary care consultations understand about the correct use of emergency ("morning after") contraception (EC), their information requirements and their views about free EC prescription.
designCross-sectional study, using a questionnaire.
settingLes Corts Primary Care Centre, Barcelona, Spain.
participantsA total of 130 women aged 15 to 45 years old who attended primary care consultations in May and June, 2005, were included. One-hundred and twenty-four of them (95.4%) agreed to the questionnaire. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We tested knowledge of EC, and we drew up a questionnaire to evaluate understanding. This had 4 multiple-choice questions, as well as socio-demographic data, contraception background, how they preferred to obtain EC, and their information requirements.
resultsWe found a lack of knowledge about several aspects of EC use: in particular, 33% of the women thought that EC eliminated completely the risk of pregnancy. We only found differences for better knowledge of EC in women who had used it before (3.03; 95% CI, 2.29-3.77) versus those who had never used it (2.47; 95% CI, 1.54-3.4; P=.028. Free prescription of EC in health centres was approved of by 75.8%, while 83.1% said they needed more information. Their preferred method to obtain this information was by leaflet.
conclusionsWomen who attend primary health care clinics have a need for information on EC. Their lack of knowledge could limit the effectiveness of treatment. A brief explanation and handing out a leaflet could solve this problem.
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.