ArticlePloS one2014
The impact of oral contraceptive initiation on young women's condom use in 3 American cities: missed opportunities for intervention.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Condom and Contraceptive Use Among Sexually Active High School Students - Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2019.MMWR supplements · 2020Article
- Variability in Condom Use Trends by Sexual Risk Behaviors: Findings from the 2003-2015 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveys.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2018Article
- Factors associated with uptake of dual contraception among HIV-infected women in Bungoma County, Kenya: a cross-sectional study.The Pan African medical journal · 2017Article
- Dual Contraceptive Method Use Among Youth in Alternative Schools.The journal of primary prevention · 2016Article
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraception and Condom Use Among Female US High School Students: Implications for Sexually Transmitted Infection Prevention.JAMA pediatrics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo describe women's condom use and assess predictors of consistent condom use and dual method use in the 6 months after the initiation of oral contraception (OC).
methodsWe conducted a planned secondary cohort analysis among women less than 25 years of age initiating oral contraceptives at public family planning clinics in Atlanta, Dallas and New York City, USA, as part of a randomized trial. These clinics provide care to predominantly African American or Hispanic women of low socioeconomic status. Participants completed interviews at enrollment and at 6 months after OC start. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess factors associated with consistent condom and dual method use at 6 months.
results1281 participants met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. At enrollment prior to OC start, 28% were consistent condom users. In the six months after initiation of oral contraception, only 14% always used a condom and 4% always used dual methods. In multivariate analysis, receiving basic advice to always use a condom after OC initiation from a provider during the baseline clinic consultation was associated with a 50% increase in the odds of using condoms consistently. Only 28% of participants were given this condom use advice.
conclusionsThis study documents a decline in women's condom consistent use subsequent to initiation of the oral contraceptive and suggests that opportunities for positive intervention around condom use among women starting hormonal methods are being missed. Basic condom use advice, which is neither time consuming nor resource dependent, was associated with increased consistent use and should be immediately implemented in all family planning services.
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.