Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25693056›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Estimating the effect of intimate partner violence on women's use of contraception: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lauren Maxwell, Karen Devries, Danielle Zionts, Jeanne L Alhusen, Jacquelyn Campbell

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
94citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

94 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Lauren MaxwellDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Karen DevriesSocial and Mathematical Epidemiology Group and Gender Violence and Health Centre, Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Danielle ZiontsDepartment of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, & Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Jeanne L AlhusenDepartment of Community-Public Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Jacquelyn CampbellDepartment of Community-Public Health, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is an important global public health problem. While there is a growing literature on the association between IPV and women's reproductive health (RH) outcomes, most studies are cross-sectional-which weakens inference about the causal effect of IPV on women's RH. This systematic review synthesizes existing evidence from the strongest study designs to estimate the impact of IPV on women's use of contraception.

methodsWe searched 11 electronic databases from January of 1980 to 3 December 2013 and reviewed reference lists from systematic reviews for studies examining IPV and contraceptive use. To be able to infer causality, we limited our review to studies that had longitudinal measures of either IPV or women's use of contraception.

resultsOf the 1,574 articles identified by the search, we included 179 articles in the full text review and extracted data from 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria. We limited the meta-analysis to seven studies that could be classified as subject to low or moderate levels of bias. Women's experience of IPV was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of using contraception (n = 14,866; OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25, 0.85; I2 = 92%; 95% CII2: 87%, 96%). Restricting to studies that measured the effect of IPV on women's use of partner dependent contraceptive methods was associated with a reduction in the heterogeneity of the overall estimate. In the three studies that examined women's likelihood of using male condoms with their partners, experience of IPV was associated with a significant decrease in condom use (OR: 0.48; 95% CIOR: 0.32, 0.72; I2 = 51%; 95% CII2: 0%, 86%).

conclusionsIPV is associated with a reduction in women's use of contraception; women who experience IPV are less likely to report using condoms with their male partners. Family planning and HIV prevention programs should consider women's experiences of IPV.

Indexed as

ContraceptionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInterpersonal RelationsMaleOdds RatioSexual PartnersSpouse AbuseWomen's Health

Identifiers

PMID25693056
PMCPMC4334227

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.