ArticleMaternal and child health journal2015
A qualitative analysis of long-acting reversible contraception.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03519685 (UCSF College Health Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 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.
UCSF College Health Study: A Cluster Randomized Trial on Contraceptive Training and Education at Community Colleges
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Qualitative Systematic Review of Women's Experiences Using Contraceptive Vaginal Rings: Implications for New Technologies.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2019Pooled it
- Barriers to contraception access and use among youth: A scoping review in high-income countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026Article
- Sexual knowledge and contraceptive use in adolescents with type 1 diabetes in comparison with their healthy peers.Endocrine · 2025Article
- How Do We Measure Contraceptive Method Preferences? Evidence From a Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Intrauterine Devices: Take Up and Discontinuation in a Time of Change.Maternal and child health journal · 2025Article
- [Contraception in adolescents with obesity and diabetes mellitus].Problemy endokrinologii · 2022Article
- Hypertension and contraceptive use among women of child-bearing age in the United States from 2001 to 2018.Journal of hypertension · 2022Article
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Attitudes and Acceptability in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Key to Patient-Centered Contraceptive Counseling.Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology · 2020Article
- Patient Opinions About Foreign Body Contraceptives.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- The myth of menstruation: how menstrual regulation and suppression impact contraceptive choice.BMC women's health · 2019Article
- A Qualitative Systematic Review of Women's Experiences Using Contraceptive Vaginal Rings: Implications for New Technologies.International perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2019Article
- Evaluating the Whoops Proof S.C. Campaign: A Pair-Matched Group Pretest-Posttest Quasi-experimental Study.Maternal and child health journal · 2019Article
- Using the theory of planned behavior and self-identity to explore women's decision-making and intention to switch from combined oral contraceptive pill (COC) to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC).BMC women's health · 2019Article
- Is Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Use Increasing? Assessing Trends Among U.S. College Women, 2008-2013.Maternal and child health journal · 2018Article
- Unmet demand for short-acting hormonal and long-acting reversible contraception among community college students in Texas.Journal of American college health : J of ACH · 2018Article
- Does counselling improve uptake of long-term and permanent contraceptive methods in a high HIV-prevalence setting?African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2015Article
- Implementation challenges for long-acting antivirals as treatment.Current opinion in HIV and AIDS · 2015Review
- You Have Options: Implementing and evaluating a contraceptive choice social marketing campaign.Medicine access @ point of careArticle
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
Increasing access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including the intrauterine device and the implant is a public health and clinical imperative to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy. In 2012, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended these methods for all women, including adolescents. Little research explores why young women reject these safe, effective contraceptive methods. A total of 53 women aged 18-24 years completed in-depth interviews. Analytical techniques from the grounded theory approach were used to identify patterns and themes across the data. Participants initiated hormonal contraception for "the pill's" beneficial side effects and believed a myth of perfect use, which constructed a false choice of LARC methods. Barriers to LARC options included access, medical resistance, and cost. Participants described a sense of unease about methods perceived as "alien." These women underestimated the risks of oral contraceptive pills and overestimated the risks of long-acting reversible contraception, including infertility. The myth of perfect use emerged as participants wanted to be in control by taking "the pill" every day; however, many described imperfect adherence. Findings include strategies for public health professionals and health care providers to distribute satisfactory and effective contraception for young women. Effective health communication campaigns will emphasize the desirable side effects, safety and increased effectiveness of LARC methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25424456What 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.