Observational studyJournal of women's health (2002)2016
Choice of Emergency Contraceptive and Decision Making Regarding Subsequent Unintended Pregnancy.
Observational study 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. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Preventing Future Pregnancy After Choosing the Copper IUD vs. Oral Levonorgestrel for Emergency Contraception
Investigation of the Potential for Intramuscular Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate as Emergency Contraception
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of non-binary measures of pregnancy perceptions, attitudes and reactions, and associated outcomes.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2025Pooled it
- Pregnancy Decision-Making Among Women With Physical Disabilities: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2026Article
- Pregnancy, Birth, Neonatal, and Mental Health Outcomes Are Minimally Associated with Pregnancy Ambivalence.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Pregnancy intentions in a group of remote-dwelling Australian Aboriginal women: a qualitative exploration of formation, expression and implications for clinical practice.BMC public health · 2019Article
- The efficacy of intrauterine devices for emergency contraception and beyond: a systematic review update.International journal of women's health · 2019Article
- The intrauterine device as emergency contraception: how much do young women know?Contraception · 2018Article
- New developments in intrauterine device use: focus on the US.Open access journal of contraception · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo prospectively evaluate (1) pregnancy desirability, (2) stated intentions should pregnancy occur among emergency contraception (EC) users, and (3) explore differences between women selecting the copper T380 intrauterine device (Cu IUD) or oral levonorgestrel (LNG) regarding hypothetical pregnancy plans and actual pregnancy actions during subsequent unintended pregnancies. STUDY
designIn this prospective observational trial, women received the Cu IUD or oral LNG for EC without cost barriers. At baseline, participants completed a visual analogue scale measuring pregnancy desirability (anchors: 0, "trying hard not to get pregnant"; 10, "trying hard to get pregnant") and self-reported plans (abortion, adoption, parenting, and unsure) if the pregnancy test were to come back positive. Pregnancies were tracked for 12 months, and actions regarding unintended pregnancies were compared between EC method groups.
resultsOf 548 enrolled women, 218 chose the Cu IUD and 330 the oral LNG for EC. Pregnancy desirability at baseline was low, with no difference between EC groups (IUD group: 0.51, SD ± 1.60; LNG group: 0.68, SD ± 1.74). Fifty-four (10%) women experienced unintended pregnancies. Pregnancy plans from baseline changed for 27 (50%) women when they became pregnant. EC groups did not differ in hypothetical pregnancy intention (p = 0.15) or in agreement of hypothetical pregnancy intention with actual pregnancy action (p = 0.80).
conclusionsWomen presenting for EC state high desire to prevent pregnancy regardless of method selected. When considering a hypothetical pregnancy, half of women had a plan for how they would respond to that situation, but when confronting an actual unintended pregnancy, half altered their plan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT00966771.
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.