Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25500324›Full record

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.

David Hubacher, Hannah Spector, Charles Monteith, Pai-Lien Chen, Catherine Hart

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT01299116 phase4completednot on this map

Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: New Research to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy

TypeinterventionalSponsorFHI 360Ran2011 to 2016Enrolled916ConditionsContraceptionArmsDMPA, oral contraceptives, Implanon®, ParaGard®, Mirena®
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Misoprostol for intrauterine device placement.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Contraceptive Method Uptake at Title X Health Centers in Utah.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David HubacherFHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701, USA. Electronic address: dhubacher@fhi360.org.
Hannah SpectorPlanned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, PO Box 3258, Chapel Hill, NC 27515, USA.
Charles MonteithPlanned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, PO Box 3258, Chapel Hill, NC 27515, USA.
Pai-Lien ChenFHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701, USA.
Catherine HartFHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701, USA.
Family Health International 360 · USPlanned Parenthood · US

Funding

Long-acting Reversible Contraception: New Research to Reduce Unintended PregnancyR01HD067751 · NICHD · FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL · PI HUBACHER, DAVID · 2011 to 2013
$1.4M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD067751NICHD NIH HHS R01HD067751
6 · The paper itself

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

Patient SelectionAdultContraceptionContraception BehaviorFemaleHumansInsurance CoveragePatient PreferencePregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedYoung AdultDMPAIUDLARCOral contraceptivesSubdermal contraceptive implant

Identifiers

PMID25500324
PMCPMC4370363
OpenAlexW2120271380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.