Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26363429›Full record

ArticleContraception2016

Emergency contraception: A multispecialty survey of clinician knowledge and practices.

Pelin Batur, Kelly Cleland, Megan McNamara, Justine Wu, Sarah Pickle, EC Survey Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. State of emergency contraception in the U.S., 2018.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2018
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Changes in U.S. Healthcare Provider Practices Related to Emergency Contraception.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Pelin BaturDepartment of Internal Medicine and Primary Care Women's Health at the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. Electronic address: baturp@ccf.org.
Kelly ClelandOffice of Population Research at Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
Megan McNamaraDepartment of Internal Medicine at the Louis Stokes Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Hospital of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Justine WuDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Sarah PickleDepartment of Family Medicine and Community Health at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
EC Survey Group
Johnson University · USCleveland Clinic · USLouis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center · USPrinceton University · US

Funding

Infrastructure for Population Research at PrincetonR24HD047879 · NICHD · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI MASSEY, DOUGLAS S · 2004 to 2013
$7.3M
Scientific and Technical Computing CoreP2CHD047879 · NICHD · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI MASSEY, DOUGLAS S · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
NICHD NIH HHS 2R24HD047879NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD047879NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD047879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess knowledge and provision of emergency contraception (EC), particularly the most effective methods. STUDY

designA web-based survey was distributed to a cross-sectional convenience sample of healthcare providers across specialties treating reproductive-aged women. The survey was sent to 3260 practicing physicians and advanced practice clinicians in 14 academic centers between February 2013 and April 2014. We analyzed responses by provider specialty using multivariable logistic regression.

resultsThe final sample included 1684 providers (response rate=51.7%). Ninety-five percent of the respondents had heard of levonorgestrel (LNG) EC. Among reproductive health specialists, 81% provide LNG EC in their practice, although only half (52%) had heard of ulipristal acetate (UPA) and very few provide it (14%). The majority in family medicine (69%) and emergency medicine (74%) provide LNG, in contrast to 42% of internists and 55% of pediatricians. However, the more effective methods [UPA and copper intrauterine device (IUD)] were little known and rarely provided outside of reproductive health specialties; 18% of internists and 14% of emergency medicine providers had heard of UPA and 4% provide it. Only 22% of emergency providers and 32% of pediatricians had heard of the copper IUD used as EC. Among reproductive health specialists, only 36% provide copper IUD as EC in their practice. Specialty, provider type and proportion of women of reproductive age in the practice were related to knowledge and provision of some forms of EC.

conclusionsAwareness and provision of the most effective EC methods, UPA and the copper IUD (which are provider dependent), are substantially lower than for LNG EC, especially among providers who do not focus on reproductive health. IMPLICATIONS: In our sample of 1684 healthcare providers from diverse specialties who treat reproductive-aged women, knowledge and provision of the most effective forms of EC (UPA and the copper IUD) are far lower than for LNG EC. Women should be offered the full range of EC methods.

Indexed as

Contraception, PostcoitalHealth Care SurveysMedicinePractice Patterns, Physicians'AwarenessClinical CompetenceEmergency MedicineFamily PracticeFemaleHumansIntrauterine Devices, CopperLevonorgestrelNorpregnadienesPediatricsReproductive Health ServicesLevonorgestrelNorpregnadienesulipristal acetateCopper IUDEmergency contraceptionLevonorgestrelUlipristal

Identifiers

PMID26363429
PMCPMC4703545
OpenAlexW1699652138

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.