ArticlePloS one2014
Pregnancy incidence and correlates in a clinical trial preparedness study, North West Province South Africa.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWomen in HIV prevention trials often must typically agree to avoid pregnancy. Regardless, some become pregnant. Screening tools predicting pregnancy risk could maximize trial safety and efficiency.
objectivesWe assessed incidence and correlates of pregnancy among women at high HIV risk.
methodsWe enrolled sexually-active, HIV-negative women into an observational cohort (2008-2011). At enrollment demographic, contraceptive, reproductive, pregnancy intention and behavioural data were collected. Women reported if one or both partners wanted or intended for the couple to become pregnant. We measured gender role beliefs using a locally validated eight-point index. We tested HIV and pregnancy, and inquired about sexually transmitted infection symptoms (STIs) at enrollment and monthly. HIV testing included behavioural counselling and condom provision, but did not specifically counsel women to avoid pregnancy. Cox proportional hazard modelling evaluated the associations with pregnancy. The multivariate model included the following variables "Recent pregnancy attempts", "Gender Roles Beliefs", "Self-reported STIs" and "Age".
resultsWe screened 1068 women and excluded (24.6%, 263/1068) who did not report risk behaviour. Non-pregnant, non-sterilized women aged 18-35 (median = 21 years) enrolled (n = 438). Most women reported one partner (74.7%) and a prior live birth (84.6%). Median follow-up time was 6 months (range 0.7-15.5). Pregnancy incidence was 25.1 per 100 women-years (n = 57 pregnancies). Conservative beliefs on gender roles (Adjusted Hazard Ratio (aHR) 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-2.9), recent pregnancy attempts (aHR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.4) and baseline self-reported STI (aHR 2.5; 95% CI 1.4-4.4) were associated with increased incident pregnancy. Report of no pregnancy intention was associated with lowered pregnancy risk (aHR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1-0.7).
conclusionsWe identified new and confirmed existing factors that can facilitate screening for pregnancy risk.
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.