ArticleThe Journal of emergency medicine2007
Patients' emergency contraception comprehension, usage, and view of the emergency department role for emergency contraception.
Article in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency contraceptive knowledge and associated factors among abortion experienced reproductive age women in Ethiopia: a multilevel analysis using EDHS 2016 data.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of emergency contraception status on unintended pregnancy: observational data from a women's health practice.Pharmacy practice · 2010Article
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
Abstract
Female Emergency Department (ED) patients were surveyed to determine their comprehension of the concept of emergency contraception (EC), to assess how often they had used EC in comparison to other forms of contraception, and to learn which patients want the ED to provide EC services. Most of the 761 respondents were aged < 35 years (62.1%), never married (42.9%), had been pregnant at least once (70.2%), had never had an abortion (76.1%), had never used EC (90.6%), and had sex with a man within the past month (70.7%). Respondents were 2.5 times more likely to have had an abortion than to have used EC; 85.3% could not correctly answer two questions that assessed comprehension of the concept of EC; 43.1% wanted the ED to offer EC, 55.6% to provide information about EC, and 52.6% to refer patients for EC. Younger patients, those who attended religious services infrequently, patients who had ever used EC, and those at risk of pregnancy were more likely to want the ED to provide EC services.
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.