ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2016
U.S. Women's Intended Sources for Reproductive Health Care.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe current sociopolitical climate and context of the Affordable Care Act have led some to question the future role of family planning clinics in reproductive health care. We explored where women plan to get their future contraception, pelvic exam/pap smears, and sexually transmitted infection testing, with a focus on the role of family planning clinics.
methodsData were drawn from a study of United States adults conducted in January 2013 from a national online panel. We focused on English-literate women aged 18-45 years who answered items on intended sources of care (private office/health maintenance organization [HMO], family planning clinic, other, would not get care) for reproductive health services. We used Rao-Scott F tests to compare intended sources across sociodemographic groups, and logistic regression to model odds of intending to use family planning clinics. Probability weights were used to adjust for the complex sampling design.
resultsThe response rate was 61% (n = 2,182). Of the 723 respondents who met the inclusion criteria, approximately half intended to use private offices/HMOs. Among some subgroups, including less educated (less than high school), lower annual incomes (<$25,000) and uninsured women, the proportion intending to use family planning clinics was higher than the proportion intending to use private office/HMO in unadjusted analyses. Across all service types, unmarried and uninsured status were associated with intention to use family planning clinics in multivariable models.
conclusionsWhile many women intend to use private offices/HMOs for their reproductive health care, family planning clinics continue to play an important role, particularly for socially disadvantaged women.
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.