Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22840278›Full record

Trial reportContraception2012

A randomized controlled study of two educational interventions on adherence with oral contraceptives and condoms.

Abbey B Berenson, Mahbubur Rahman

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contraception, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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.

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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Theory-based interventions for contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Mobile phone-based interventions for improving contraception use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  12. Behavioral interventions for improving dual-method contraceptive use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Abbey B BerensonDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 77555, USA. abberens@utmb.edu
Mahbubur Rahman
The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston · US

Funding

Interdisciplinary Mentoring in Women's HealthK24HD043659 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR GALVESTON · PI BERENSON, ABBEY B · 2003 to 2012
$1.5M
NICHD NIH HHS K24 HD043659NICHD NIH HHS K24HD043659PHS HHS R40MC06634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe study was conducted to examine the effectiveness of two different interventions on oral contraception (OC) adherence and condom use. STUDY

designA total of 1,155 women 16-24 years of age requesting OC were randomized to receive either face-to-face behavioral counseling and education at their baseline clinic visit (C group; n=383) or this same intervention followed by monthly phone calls for 6 months (C+P group; n=384) or standard care (S group; n=388). Phone interviews at 3, 6 and 12 months after the initial visit as well as a medical record review assessed OC continuation, condom use and several other secondary and clinically meaningful outcomes such as pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection (STI) rates and correct use of pills.

resultsThe interventions did not have a significant effect on OC continuation after 3 (C+P: 58%; C: 50%; S: 55%), 6 (39%; 32%; 37%) or 12 months (20%; 18%; 20%) (p>.05). Condom use at last sexual intercourse did not differ by intervention methods (p>.05). Moreover, no effect was observed on pregnancy [S=48 (12.4%), C =63 (16.5%), C+P=52 (13.5%); p=.22] and STI [S=18 (4.6%), C=12 (3.1%), C+P=13 (3.4%); p=.50] rates, and mean number of correctly used pill packs (p=.06). However, those randomized to C+P were more likely than C and S patients to identify a cue and report that the cue worked as a reminder to take their OC on time based on 3 and 6 months follow-up information (p<.01 for all relationships).

conclusionsNeither intervention in this study improved OC adherence among young women.

Indexed as

CondomsContraception BehaviorAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorAdultBehavior ControlContraceptives, OralFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceIntention to Treat AnalysisPatient Education as TopicPilot ProjectsPregnancyPregnancy RateContraceptives, Oral

Identifiers

PMID22840278
PMCPMC3489990
OpenAlexW2129140702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.