Trial reportContraception2015
Rationale and enrollment results for a partially randomized patient preference trial to compare continuation rates of short-acting and long-acting reversible contraception.
Trial report in Contraception, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01299116 (Long-Acting Reversible Contraception), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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.
Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: New Research to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Non-pharmacologic techniques for interval intrauterine device placement: a systematic review.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2025Pooled it
- Misoprostol for intrauterine device placement.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review.Contraception · 2016Pooled it
- Trial
- Not seeking yet trying long-acting reversible contraception: a 24-month randomized trial on continuation, unintended pregnancy and satisfaction.Contraception · 2018Trial
- Long-acting reversible contraceptive acceptability and unintended pregnancy among women presenting for short-acting methods: a randomized patient preference trial.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2017Trial
- Review
- Transgender Women's Barriers, Facilitators, and Preferences on Tailored Injection Delivery Strategies to Administer Long-Acting Injectable Cabotegravir (CAB-LA) for HIV Pre-exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP).AIDS and behavior · 2021Article
- Translation of two healthy eating and active living support programs for parents of 2-6 year old children: a parallel partially randomised preference trial protocol (the 'time for healthy habits' trial).BMC public health · 2020Article
- Familiarity and acceptability of long-acting reversible contraception and contraceptive choice.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
- Determinants of long acting reversible contraception utilization in Northwest Ethiopia: An institution-based case control study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Implications of employer coverage of contraception: Cost-effectiveness analysis of contraception coverage under an employer mandate.Contraception · 2017Article
- Low protein diets in patients with chronic kidney disease: a bridge between mainstream and complementary-alternative medicines?BMC nephrology · 2016Review
- Will they participate? Predicting patients' response to clinical trial invitations in a pediatric emergency department.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2016Article
- Contraceptive Method Uptake at Title X Health Centers in Utah.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's HealthArticle
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
objectivesMost published contraceptive continuation rates have scientific limitations and cannot be compared; this is particularly true for dissimilar contraceptives. This study uses a new approach to determine if high continuation rates of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and protection from unintended pregnancy are observable in a population not self-selecting to use LARC. STUDY
designWe are conducting a partially randomized patient preference trial (PRPPT) to compare continuation rates of short-acting reversible contraception (SARC) and LARC. Only women seeking SARC were invited to participate. Participants chose to be in the preference cohort (self-selected method use) or opted to be randomized to SARC or LARC; only those in the randomized cohort received free product. We compared participant characteristics, reasons for not trying LARC previously and the contraceptive choices that were made.
resultsWe enrolled 917 eligible women; 57% chose to be in the preference cohort and 43% opted for the randomized trial. The preference and randomized cohorts were similar on most factors. However, the randomized cohort was more likely than the preference cohort to be uninsured (48% versus 36%, respectively) and to cite cost as a reason for not trying LARC previously (50% versus 10%) (p<.01 for both comparisons). In the preference cohort, fear of pain/injury/side effects/health risks were the predominant reasons (cited by over 25%) for not trying LARC previously (p<.01 in comparison to randomized cohort).
conclusionsEnrollment was successful and the process created different cohorts to compare contraceptive continuation rates and unintended pregnancy in this ongoing trial. The choices participants made were associated with numerous factors; lack of insurance was associated with participation in the randomized trial. IMPLICATIONS: This PRPPT will provide new estimates of contraceptive continuation rates, such that any benefits of LARC will be more easily attributable to the technology and not the user. Combined with measuring level of satisfaction with LARC, the results will help project the potential role and benefits of expanding voluntary use of LARC.
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.