Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25644443›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015

The role of contraceptive attributes in women's contraceptive decision making.

Tessa Madden, Gina M Secura, Robert F Nease, Mary C Politi, Jeffrey F Peipert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Tessa MaddenDivision of Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: maddent@wustl.edu.
Gina M SecuraDivision of Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Robert F NeaseDivision of General Medical Sciences, Department of Internal Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Mary C PolitiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Jeffrey F PeipertDivision of Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.

Funding

EVALUATION AND TESTING OF A DECISION SUPPORT AID IN CONTRACEPTIVE DECISION MAKINGK23HD070979 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, TESSA · 2012 to 2014
$367k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD070979NICHD NIH HHS K23HD070979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveContraceptive methods have differing attributes. Women's preferences for these attributes may influence contraceptive decision making. Our objective was to identify women's contraceptive preferences among women initiating a new contraceptive method. STUDY

designWe conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered survey of women's contraceptive preferences at the time of enrollment into the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Participants were asked to rank the importance of 15 contraceptive attributes on a 3-point scale (1 = not at all important, 2 = somewhat important, and 3 = very important) and then to rank the 3 attributes that were the most important when choosing a contraceptive method. The survey also contained questions about prior contraceptive experience and barriers to contraceptive use. Information about demographic and reproductive characteristics was collected through the CHOICE Project baseline survey.

resultsThere were 2590 women who completed the survey. Our sample was racially and socioeconomically diverse. Method attributes with the highest importance score (mean score [SD]) were effectiveness (2.97 [0.18]), safety (2.96 [0.22]), affordability (2.61 [0.61]), whether the method is long lasting (2.58 [0.61]), and whether the method is "forgettable" (2.54 [0.66]). The attributes most likely to be ranked by respondents among the top 3 attributes included effectiveness (84.2%), safety (67.8%), and side effects of the method (44.6%).

conclusionMultiple contraceptive attributes influence decision making and no single attribute drives most women's decisions. Tailoring communication and helping women make complex tradeoffs between attributes can better support their contraceptive decisions and may assist them in making value-consistent choices. This process could improve continuation and satisfaction.

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorContraceptive Agents, FemaleDecision MakingAttitude to HealthChoice BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntrauterine DevicesYoung AdultContraceptive Agents, Femalecontraceptive attributescontraceptive decision makingcontraceptive implantintrauterine devicepreference-sensitive decision

Identifiers

PMID25644443
PMCPMC4485538

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.