Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19104366›Full record

Trial reportObstetrics and gynecology2009

Attitude and behavior effects in a randomized trial of increased access to emergency contraception.

Mark A Weaver, Elizabeth G Raymond, Laura Baecher

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00060463 (Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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.

NCT00060463 naunknown statusnot on this map

Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills

TypeinterventionalSponsorEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)Ran2002 to 2005Enrolled1,490ConditionsPregnancy, Sexually Transmitted DiseasesArmsIncreased access to emergency contraceptive pills
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Increased access to emergency contraception: why it may fail.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2009
    Trial
  3. Demographic and health impacts of women's bodily autonomy: switching prescription requirements for emergency contraceptives.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Is overpromotion of emergency contraceptives misdirecting youth away from condom culture?Indian journal of sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark A WeaverFrom Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Elizabeth G Raymond
Laura Baecher
Family Health International 360 · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive PillsR01HD039907 · NICHD · FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL · PI RAYMOND, ELIZABETH G · 2001 to 2004
$2.1M
NICHD NIH HHS 5 R01 HD39907-04NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD039907
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the effects of providing unrestricted access to emergency contraception in advance of need on various psychosocial outcomes and pregnancy.

methodsIn the trial, women were randomly assigned to either increased access to emergency contraception (two free packs at enrollment with unlimited free resupply) or standard access. Participants were evaluated for 1 year for pregnancy and other outcomes. Psychosocial data were collected at enrollment and at 6 and 12 months. We applied exploratory factor analysis for data reduction. We compared the resulting psychosocial factors (including factors related to "aversion to pregnancy" and to the perceived "relative benefit" and "accessibility" of emergency contraception), two items directly assessing substitution, and pregnancy between randomization groups over time.

resultsOn average, women in the increased access group had significantly stronger perceptions of both the "relative benefit" and "accessibility" of emergency contraception (P<.001 for each). Women in the increased access group were significantly more likely to report that they had ever used emergency contraception because they did not want to use either condoms or another contraceptive method (P<.001). Regarding pregnancy, we noted a significant interaction between randomization group and "aversion to pregnancy" (P=.010): among the least "averse" women, increased access had a protective effect (hazard ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.39-1.04); among the most "averse" women, increased access had a deleterious effect (hazard ratio 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.98).

conclusionAs a result of having unrestricted access, some women substituted emergency contraception for their usual contraceptive methods. CLINICAL

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00060463 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Indexed as

Contraceptives, PostcoitalHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth Services AccessibilityAdolescentContraception BehaviorContraception, PostcoitalFemaleHumansPregnancyYoung AdultContraceptives, Postcoital

Identifiers

PMID19104366
PMCPMC2733785
OpenAlexW2066552791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.