ArticlePharmacy practice2010
Impact of emergency contraception status on unintended pregnancy: observational data from a women's health practice.
Article in Pharmacy practice, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Knowledge of, beliefs about, and perceived barriers to the use of the emergency contraception pill among women aged 18-51 in Nova Scotia.Pharmacy practice · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to determine if nonprescription emergency contraception (EC) availability impacted self-reported unintended pregnancy rates and to assess women's knowledge and awareness of EC prior to and after nonprescription availability.
methodsA survey regarding contraception use and knowledge was verbally administered to a cross-sectional, convenience sample of 272 pregnant women receiving prenatal care at a large urban community women's clinic between August 2003 and October 2008. Statistical analyses determined the differences between two groups (before [BA] and after, [AA] non-prescription EC availability in the U.S. drug market) in terms of self-reported unintended pregnancy rates, knowledge and awareness of EC.
resultsThe AA group reported higher incidence of unintended pregnancy when compared to the BA group (90.7% vs. 72.7%, P = 0.0172). The majority of both groups reported that they were not using any contraception at the time of conception (BA-84.4%; AA-83.3%). There was no significant difference in the participants' awareness of EC between the two groups (BA-46.8% vs. AA-43.0%) nor was there a significant difference between the two groups in the self-reported willingness to use EC in the future (BA-53.1% vs. AA-63.4%). However, among participants who were unaware of EC, 61% reported they would consider using it in the future after receiving brief EC counseling from a pharmacist or student pharmacist. Neither age nor pregnancy intention was associated with self-reported EC awareness but there was an association with income (P = 0.0410) and education (P = 0.0021).
conclusionThe change from prescription-only to non-prescription status of EC in the U.S. drug market did not impact the unintended pregnancy rate in this patient population. Lack of knowledge and awareness is still a major barrier to widespread EC use.
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.