ArticleContraception2017
Provider self-disclosure during contraceptive counseling.
Article in Contraception, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health workers' values and preferences regarding contraceptive methods globally: A systematic review.Contraception · 2022Pooled it
- Provider Self-Disclosure During the Childhood Vaccine Discussion.Clinical pediatrics · 2019Observational
- Contraceptive counseling: best practices to ensure quality communication and enable effective contraceptive use.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesProvider self-disclosure (PSD) - defined as providers making statements regarding personal information to patients - has not been well characterized in the context of contraceptive counseling. In this study, we describe the incidence, content and context of contraceptive PSD. STUDY
designThis mixed methods analysis used data from the Provider-Patient Contraceptive Counseling study, for which 349 family planning patients were recruited from 2009 to 2012 from six clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area. Audio-recordings from their visits were analyzed for the presence or absence of PSD, and those visits with evidence of PSD were analyzed using qualitative methods. The associations of patient and provider demographics and patient satisfaction measures, obtained from survey data, with PSD were analyzed using bivariable and multivariable analyses.
resultsThirty-seven percent of providers showed evidence of PSD during at least one visit, and PSD occurred in 9% of clinic visits. Fifty-four percent of PSD statements were about intrauterine devices. About half of PSD statements occurred prior to the final selection of the contraceptive method and appeared to influence the choice of method. In post-visit surveys, all patients who reported receiving PSD considered it to be appropriate, and patient-reported PSD was not statistically associated with measures of patient satisfaction.
conclusionsThis study provides some support for the appropriateness of PSD during family planning encounters, at least as practiced during the sampled visits. Further research could explore whether this counseling strategy has an impact on patients' ability to identify the best contraceptive methods for them. IMPLICATIONS: In this study, PSD did not have a demonstrated negative effect on the provider-patient relationship. In almost half of visits, PSD appeared to influence patients' choice of a method; whether this influence is beneficial needs further research.
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.