Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25492313›Full record

ArticleContraception2015

A checklist approach to caring for women seeking pregnancy testing: effects on contraceptive knowledge and use.

Jessica Lee, Melissa Papic, Erin Baldauf, Glenn Updike, E Bimla Schwarz

Erratum issuedOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Jessica LeeUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.
Melissa PapicUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Medicine.
Erin BaldaufUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Medicine.
Glenn UpdikeUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.
E Bimla SchwarzUniversity of Pittsburgh, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences; University of Pittsburgh, Department of Medicine; University of Pittsburgh, Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology. Electronic address: ebschwarz@ucdavis.edu.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

Contraceptive Services/Primary Care to Prevent Birth DefectsK23HD051585 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI SCHWARZ, ELEANOR BIMLA · 2006 to 2010
$631k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD051585OAPP OPHS HHS R01PG000859
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess how a checklist reminding clinicians to deliver a bundled intervention affects contraceptive knowledge and use 3 months after women seek walk-in pregnancy testing.

methodsPre-intervention, an inner-city family planning clinic provided unstructured care; during the intervention period, clinic staff used a checklist to ensure women received needed services. Women seeking walk-in pregnancy testing who wished to avoid pregnancy for at least 6 months were asked to complete surveys about their contraceptive knowledge and use immediately after and 3-months after visiting the study clinic. To assess the significance of changes over time, we used logistic regression models.

resultsBetween January 2011 and May 2013, over 1500 women sought pregnancy testing from the study clinic; 323 completed surveys (95 pre-intervention and 228 during the intervention period). With this checklist intervention, participants were more likely to receive emergency contraception (EC) (22% vs. 5%, [aOR 4.66 (1.76-12.35)], [corrected] have an intrauterine device or implant placed at the time of their clinic visit (5% vs. 0%, p=0.02), or receive a contraceptive prescription (23% vs. 10%, p<0.001). Three months after visiting the study clinic, participants from the intervention period were more knowledgeable about intrauterine and subdermal contraception and were more likely to report at 3-month follow-up a method of contraception more effective than the method they used prior to seeking pregnancy testing from the study clinic (aOR=2.02, 95% CI=1.03-3.96). The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. [corrected].

conclusionsWomen seeking walk-in pregnancy testing appear more likely to receive EC and to have switched to a more effective form of birth control in the 3 months following their visit when clinic staff used a 3-item checklist and provided scripted counseling. IMPLICATIONS: A checklist reminding clinic staff to assess pregnancy intentions, provide scripted counseling about both emergency and highly-effective reversible contraception, and offer same-day contraceptive initiation to women seeking walk-in pregnancy testing appears to increase use of more effective contraception.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraception, PostcoitalHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient Education as TopicSex EducationAdolescentAdultChecklistContraceptive Agents, FemaleDrug ImplantsFamily Planning ServicesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansContraceptive Agents, FemaleDrug Implantschecklistcontraceptive counselingemergency contraceptionIntrauterine ContraceptionPregnancy testing

Identifiers

PMID25492313
PMCPMC4303533
OpenAlexW2063361581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.