Trial reportBMC women's health2015
Observational, prospective, multicentre study to evaluate the effects of counselling on the choice of combined hormonal contraceptives in Italy--the ECOS (Educational COunselling effectS) study.
Trial report in BMC women's health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01181778 (Observational, Prospective, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Educational Counseling Effects in the Choice of Different Combined Hormonal Contraceptives), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Observational, Prospective, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Educational Counseling Effects in the Choice of Different Combined Hormonal Contraceptives
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Values and preferences for contraception: A global systematic review.Contraception · 2022Pooled it
- Article
- Reasons for hormonal contraceptive use in a cohort of African-American women living in the Detroit area.Contraception · 2020Article
- Pill, patch or ring? A mixed methods analysis of provider counseling about combined hormonal contraception.Contraception · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdequate counselling on contraceptive methods can help users choose the most appropriate method. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of structured counselling provided by gynaecologists on selection of a combined hormonal contraception method.
methodsWomen aged 18-40 years (n = 1871) who were considering the use of a combined hormonal contraception method (pill, transdermal patch or vaginal ring) underwent a structured counselling session in which gynaecologists provided comprehensive information. Pre- and post-counselling questionnaires on combined hormonal contraception choice were completed by participants.
resultsAfter counselling, many women (38 %) selected a combined hormonal contraception method that was different from the originally intended one. Preferences for the transdermal patch approximately doubled (from 3.2 % pre-counselling to 7 %; p < 0.0001) and those for the vaginal ring increased four-fold (from 5.2 to 21.2 %; p < 0.0001), while preference for the pill remained unchanged (from 64.5 % [pre-] to 64.1 % [post-counselling]). The proportion of undecided women decreased from 18 to 2.1 % (p < 0.0001). The main reasons for choosing a method were related to ease of use (all methods), and preferences for administration frequency (daily, weekly or monthly). The number of patients requiring post-counselling contact with the physician's office was low (5.1-6.9 %), as was the incidence of adverse events (1.8-3.1 %).
conclusionsCounselling has a significant impact on women's choice of combined hormonal contraception and encourages them to consider alternative methods to combined oral contraceptives. Moreover, it also enables women to use their chosen method with confidence.
trial registrationNCT01181778 , Trial registration date: August 12, 2010.
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.