ArticleInternational journal of women's health2013
Agreement between patient-reported and provider-reported choice of contraceptive method among family planning patients in New York City: implications for public health.
Article in International journal of women's health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
National data on choice of contraceptive method and subsequent use are critical for monitoring progress toward meeting public health goals in reducing unintended pregnancy in the US. Yet few studies have focused on the reliability of clinically-reported or patient-reported measures of choice of contraceptive method for the range of available contraceptive methods. Among 1,844 women receiving reproductive health care at two federally funded centers in New York City, choice of contraceptive method at the end of the visit from two data sources was compared, ie, patient self-report, and provider-report as recorded in the clinical-administrative database. Agreement between the two data sources was assessed for the sample. Sociodemographic predictors of agreement were assessed using logistic regression. Agreement between the data sources was also assessed on a method-by-method basis using positive specific agreement. Participants were predominantly Latina (69%), foreign-born (76%), and low-income (99% with incomes <200% federal poverty level). Agreement of patient-reported and provider-reported contraceptive choice was highest for hormonal methods (positive specific agreement 94.0%) and intrauterine devices (89.9%), and lowest for condoms (53.5%). In the logistic regression model, agreement was lower among teens aged 16-19 years compared with women aged 25+ years (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.99). Because teens are more likely to rely on condoms, the logistic regression model was repeated, adjusting for provider report of condom choice; after adjustment, no sociodemographic differences in agreement were observed. National data sources or studies relying on provider-reported method choice to derive estimates of contraceptive prevalence may overestimate choice of condoms. Our findings raise the question of whether condom choice can be accurately assessed by a single open-ended measure of choice of contraceptive method.
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.