ArticlePharmacy world & science : PWS2010
Information sources used by women in Finland who use hormonal contraceptives.
Article in Pharmacy world & science : PWS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers and facilitators to contraception access for South Asian women in high-income, English-speaking countries: a systematic review.BMC primary care · 2026Pooled it
- Reproductive health awareness in Romania: women's knowledge, practices, and information-seeking behaviors.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2026Article
- Perception and experiences of having children and contraceptive use among women in low-income groups: a qualitative study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Reasons for allowing and refusing generic substitution and factors determining the choice of an interchangeable prescription medicine: a survey among pharmacy customers in Finland.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Trends in the receipt of medicines information among Finnish adults in 1999-2014: a nationwide repeated cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to examine information sources used by women who use hormonal contraceptives (HCs), and how information source affected women's attitudes and perceptions in 2001 and 2007.
settingThe questionnaires were distributed from university pharmacies in 12 large cities across Finland.
methodThe data were collected with two questionnaire surveys among women who used hormonal contraceptives in 2001 and 2007. In the 2001 survey the response rate was 53% (n = 264) and in the 2007 survey 55% (n = 436).
resultsThe number of respondents who considered professional information sources the most important information sources was markedly bigger in 2007 than in 2001 (P = 0.005). The most common source of information concerning the benefits of hormonal contraceptives was a physician (2001: 43%, 2007: 53%). The most common source of information concerning the risks of hormonal contraceptives was friends and relatives (43%) in 2001 and physician in 2007 (35%). Only a few percent of the respondents considered a pharmacy the most important information source both the 2001 and 2007 surveys.
conclusionThe importance of health care professionals as sources of information concerning hormonal contraceptives has increased. However, role of pharmacists as information source was surprisingly small. Women who use hormonal contraceptives need more information from professional sources to alleviate possible fears associated with use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19876757What 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.