ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2015
A population-based study of US women's preferred versus usual sources of reproductive health care.
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 25 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The impact of screening for social risks on OBGYN patients and providers: A systematic review of current evidence and key gaps.Journal of the National Medical Association · 2023Pooled it
- Preconception, Interconception, and reproductive health screening tools: A systematic review.Health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraception, Condom Use, and Sexually Transmitted Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.American journal of preventive medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Family Planning Providers' Assessment of Intimate Partner Violence and Substance Use.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Trial
- Where U.S. Women Receive Primary Care: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Focus on postpartum care transitions: a pathway to improve perinatal health.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Understanding patient perspectives on the quality of family planning care: a qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- Virtual Preconception Risk Assessment and Counseling In Primary Health Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2025Article
- Complication of Nexplanon contraceptive implant requiring intramuscular removal from biceps: A Case Report.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
- A Scoping Review of Obstetrics and Gynecology Curricula in Primary Care Residency Programs.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Case Report: Using primary care behavioral health to address routine nausea and vomiting in pregnancy and prenatal psychosocial concerns.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Addressing Unmet PrEP Needs in Women: Impact of a Laboratory-Driven Protocol at an Urban, Essential Hospital.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- The EMeRGE theory of emerging adult-aged women's sexual and reproductive health self-management: A grounded theory study.Journal of advanced nursing · 2024Article
- Barriers to Interconception Care Delivery in Primary Care: Clinician, Staff, and Patient Perspectives.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Barriers to and Facilitators of Contraceptive Implant Training in New Jersey Family Medicine Residencies: A Qualitative Study.Family medicine · 2023Article
- 'Taking Care': A qualitative study of emerging adult-aged women's sexual and reproductive health definitions.Sexual & reproductive healthcare : official journal of the Swedish Association of Midwives · 2023Article
- Contraceptive Procedures in Internal Medicine Clinics and Resident Education: a Qualitative Study of Implementation Methods, Barriers, and Facilitators.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Program Evaluation of an Integrated Behavioral Health Clinic in an Outpatient Women's Health Clinic: Challenges and Considerations.Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings · 2020Article
- Adverse life experiences and risk of unintended pregnancy in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for toxic stress and reproductive health.SSM - population health · 2019Article
- Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Among Adolescent and Young Adult Women and Receipt of Sexually Transmitted Infection/Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Related Services.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2018Article
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
objectiveWe characterized US women's preferred and usual sources of reproductive health care. STUDY
designData were drawn from the Women's Health Care Experiences and Preferences Study, an Internet survey of 1078 women aged 18-55 years randomly sampled from a national probability panel. We described and compared women's preferred and usual sources of care (women's health specialists including obstetricians-gynecologists and family-planning clinics, primary care, other) for Papanicolaou/pelvic examination, contraception, and sexually transmitted infection (STI) services using χ(2), logistic regression, and kappa statistics.
resultsAmong women reporting health service utilization (n = 984, 92% overall; 77% Papanicolaou/pelvic; 33% contraception; 8% STI), women's health specialists were the most used sources of care for Papanicolaou/pelvic (68%), contraception (74%), and STI (75%) services. Women's health specialists were also the most preferred care sources for Papanicolaou/pelvic (68%), contraception (49%), and STI (35%) services, whereas the remainder of women preferred primary care/other sources or not to get care. Differences in preferred and usual care sources were noted across sociodemographic groups, including insurance status and income level (P < .05). Preference for women's health specialists was the strongest predictor of women's health specialist utilization for Papanicolaou/pelvic (adjusted odds ratio, 48.8; 95% confidence interval, 25.9-91.8; P < .001) and contraceptive (adjusted odds ratio, 194.5; 95% confidence interval, 42.3-894.6; P < .001) services. Agreement between preferred and usual-care sources was high for Papanicolaou/pelvic (85%, kappa, 0.63) and contraception (86%; kappa, 0.64) services; disagreement (range, 15-22%) was associated with insurance, employment, income, race, and religion (P < .05).
conclusionWomen's preferences for and use of women's health specialists for reproductive health care has implications for efforts to define the role of obstetricians-gynecologists and family planning clinics in current health systems.
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.