ArticleJournal of caring sciences2012
Communicating contraceptive effectiveness: a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of caring sciences, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Universal access to essential health information: accelerating progress towards universal health coverage and other SDG health targets.BMJ global health · 2020Review
- End-user involvement in developing and field testing an online contraceptive decision aid.SAGE open medicine · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIncreasing the knowledge of women on effectiveness of contraceptive methods can lead to the use of more effective methods and reduce unwanted pregnancies and adverse outcomes. We aimed to compare three different approaches for increasing women's understanding of effectiveness of contraceptive methods.
methodsWe ran-domly assigned 630 eligible women of reproductive age to one of the three groups. Each woman received one of three charts presenting pregnancy risk with each contraceptive method. Participants before and while reviewing the chart, answered to three key ques-tions about the effectiveness of the methods. The data were analyzed using chi-square, ANOVA and McNemar's tests in SPSS version 13.
resultsThe most important reasons for choosing contraceptive methods were their effectiveness (45%), ease of use (18%) and few side effects (14%). At baseline, the participants' knowledge about the effective-ness of the methods was poor. Correct answers were 44% about comparing the effec-tiveness of the combined pills vs. that of condoms, 50% about intrauterine devices vs. injectables, and 52% about condoms vs. withdrawal. While reviewing the charts, the percentages significantly (p < 0.001) increased to 80%, 84% and 85%, respectively. All the three charts almost equally increased the correct responds to the questions.
conclusionThe three approaches had considerable and nearly identical effects on the promotion of women's knowledge about effectiveness of the contraceptive methods. Therefore, appropriate use of the charts is required during counseling sessions for contraceptive choice because it is impossible to have informed choice of the method without understanding their effectiveness.
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.