ArticleContraception2014
Clinicians' perceptions and provision of hormonal contraceptives for HIV-positive and at-risk women in Southern Africa: an original research article.
Article in Contraception, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess clinician provision of hormonal contraception for HIV-positive and at-risk women in Southern Africa. STUDY
designWe conducted a nationally representative survey of clinicians (n=1444) in HIV-prevalent settings in South Africa and Zimbabwe to evaluate evidence-based contraceptive care and clinician views of hormonal contraceptives for HIV-positive and at-risk women. Multivariable logistic regression was used to analyze differences in contraceptive provision by professional training and practice setting.
resultsMost providers offered oral contraceptives (85%), but only a small minority considered them appropriate for women at risk of HIV (27%) or HIV-positive women (25%). A higher proportion of clinicians considered injections appropriate for women at risk of HIV (42%) or HIV-positive women (46%). Very few considered emergency contraceptives appropriate (13%). Multivariable results showed that family planning training and clinic as compared to hospital practices were associated with evidence-based attitudes about contraception for HIV-positive or at-risk women and greater provision. There were no differences, however, between physicians and nurses or by HIV training.
conclusionsThese findings emphasize the need to improve clinicians' awareness of evidence-based guidelines for hormonal contraception for women at high risk of HIV and HIV-positive women. Evidence-based information that oral contraception and injections are appropriate is essential. Contraceptive education should be integrated into HIV training to reach at-risk populations.
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.