Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18425974›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

Strategies for communicating contraceptive effectiveness.

L M Lopez, M J Steiner, D A Grimes, K F Schulz

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Theory-based interventions for contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Knowledge of contraceptive effectiveness.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2012
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L M LopezFamily Health International, Behavioural and Biomedical Research, P.O. Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. llopez@fhi.org
M J Steiner
D A Grimes
K F Schulz
Family Health International 360 · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge of contraceptive effectiveness is crucial to making an informed choice. The consumer has to comprehend the pros and cons of the contraceptive methods being considered. Choice may be influenced by understanding the likelihood of pregnancy with each method and factors that influence effectiveness.

objectivesTo review all randomized controlled trials comparing strategies for communicating to consumers the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing pregnancy. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases MEDLINE, POPLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for studies of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. We also examined references lists of relevant articles, and wrote to known investigators for information about other published or unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared methods for communicating contraceptive effectiveness to consumers. The comparison could be usual practice or an alternative to the experimental intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted by two authors and entered into RevMan. For dichotomous variables, the Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was calculated. For continuous variables, the weighted mean difference (WMD) was computed. MAIN

resultsFive trials met the inclusion criteria. In one study, knowledge gain favored a slide-and-sound presentation versus a physician's oral presentation (WMD -19.00; 95% CI -27.52 to -10.48). Another trial showed a table with effectiveness categories led to more correct answers than one based on numbers [ORs were 2.42 (95% CI 1.43 to 4.12) and 2.19 (95% CI 1.21 to 3.97)] or a table with categories and numbers [ORs were 2.58 (95% CI 1.5 to 4.42) and 2.03 (95% CI 1.13 to 3.64)]. One trial examined contraceptive choice: women in the expanded program were more likely to choose sterilization (OR 4.26; 95% CI 2.46 to 7.37) or use a modern contraceptive method (OR 2.35; 95% CI 1.82 to 3.03). No trial had an explicit theoretical base, but each used concepts from common theories or models. AUTHORS'

conclusionsWe have limited evidence about what works to help consumers choose an appropriate contraceptive method. For presenting pregnancy risk data, one trial showed that categories were better than numbers. In another trial, audiovisual aids worked better than the usual oral presentation. Strategies for communicating information should be examined in clinical settings and assessed for effect on contraceptive choice and retention of knowledge. To expand the knowledge base of what works in contraceptive counseling, randomized trials could intentionally use and test theories or models.

Indexed as

CommunicationContraceptive AgentsAttitudeContraceptionFemaleHumansProgram EvaluationRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID18425974
OpenAlexW2157244198

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.