Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26689590›Full record

Trial reportReproductive health2015

Women's experiences of ovulation testing: a qualitative analysis.

Georgina Jones, Jill Carlton, Sarah Weddell, Sarah Johnson, William L Ledger

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Reproductive 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 NCT01084304 (Assessment of Stress Levels in Consumers Using Ovulation Tests in Order to Conceive), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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.

NCT01084304 completednot on this map

Assessment of Stress Levels in Consumers Using Ovulation Tests in Order to Conceive

TypeobservationalSponsorSPD Development Company LimitedRan2010 to 2011Enrolled150ConditionsStress
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors.

Georgina JonesHealth Economics and Decision Science (HEDS), School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. g.l.jones@sheffield.ac.uk.
Jill CarltonHealth Economics and Decision Science (HEDS), School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. j.carlton@sheffield.ac.uk.
Sarah WeddellScientific and Medical Affairs, SPD Development Company Limited, Clearblue Innovation Centre, Priory Business Park, Bedford, MK44 3UP, UK. sarah.weddell@spdspark.com.
Sarah JohnsonScientific and Medical Affairs, SPD Development Company Limited, Clearblue Innovation Centre, Priory Business Park, Bedford, MK44 3UP, UK. sarah.johnson@spdspark.com.
William L LedgerObstetrics and Gynaecology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. w.ledger@unsw.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe introduction of home digital ovulation tests (OTs) has provided a simple solution for women wishing to optimise the timing of intercourse when trying to conceive. However, despite this, very little is understood about women's experiences of using these tests.

methodsWe carried out qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with women who were seeking to conceive (not actively undergoing clinical investigation/fertility treatment) from the general UK population. The interviews were conducted following participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which participants were either provided with digital home OTs to assist in timing intercourse (n = 18) or advised to have intercourse every 2-3 days (n = 18). The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and then analysed using Framework analysis to identify the themes.

resultsData saturation was reached after 36 interviews. The use of the OT appeared to elicit 10 key themes, which could be described within the context of three overarching issues: 1) a positive impact (understanding the menstrual cycle, confirming when ovulating, emotional support, improving the relationship), 2) a negative impact (changing sex life and relationship with their partner, the emotional consequences of prolonged use, questions and uncertainty about what their results mean for them) and 3) the experiences of trying to conceive in general (use of clinical guidance and emotional experience).

conclusionsOverall, the use of home OTs were found to affect women's thoughts and feelings in multiple ways during attempts to conceive. Although some women reported a range of negative experiences when using OTs, they also reported similar negative experiences when trying to conceive without using the tests. However, there were many positive themes associated with OT use, including an increased understanding of the menstrual cycle, confirmation of ovulation timing and providing a source of help and support when trying to conceive. Overall, when women are trying to conceive, ensuring they have access to high-quality information, including use of OT, may be of benefit to help address some of the questions and uncertainties that were raised by the participants in this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01084304.

Indexed as

Attitude to HealthAdultFemaleFertilityHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInfertility, FemaleInterviews as TopicMenstrual CycleOvulation DetectionQualitative ResearchSexual BehaviorStress, PsychologicalYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26689590
PMCPMC4687078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.