ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015
The role of contraceptive attributes in women's contraceptive decision making.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
52 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Pooled it
- Values and preferences for contraception: A global systematic review.Contraception · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.Reproductive health · 2017Pooled it
- Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial.Contraception · 2020Trial
- Bleeding profile associated with 1-year use of the segesterone acetate/ethinyl estradiol contraceptive vaginal system: pooled analysis from Phase 3 trials.Contraception · 2019Trial
- Article
- Use of PROMIS Global-10 to measure changes in health-related quality of life among contraceptive initiators: A feasibility study.Contraception · 2025Article
- How Do We Measure Contraceptive Method Preferences? Evidence From a Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Article
- Patient and obstetrician-gynecologist perspectives on considering long-acting reversible contraception for postpartum patients who desire permanent contraception.Contraception · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude and acceptability for long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods among women attending contraception counselling sessions: A cross-sectional study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- The Global Impact of Diversifying PrEP Options: Results of an International Discrete Choice Experiment of Existing and Potential PrEP Strategies with Gay and Bisexual Men and Physicians.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2024Article
- Continuation of Reversible Contraception Following Enrollment in the Zika Contraception Access Network (Z-CAN) in Puerto Rico, 2016-2020.Studies in family planning · 2024Article
- Comparison of Combined Parenteral and Oral Hormonal Contraceptives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Long-acting family planning switching and associated factors among revisit women in Toke Kutaye district of West Shoa Zone, Oromia Region public health facilities, Ethiopia: a mixed methods study.BMC women's health · 2023Article
- Development of a clinical questionnaire to support contraception decisions in an adolescent reproductive health clinic in Colorado.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2023Article
- Who prefers what? Correlates of preferences for next-generation HIV prevention products among a national U.S. sample of young men who have sex with men.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2023Article
- Article
- Fulfillment of Desired Postpartum Permanent Contraception: a Health Disparities Issue.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2022Article
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.
Funding
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
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.