ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2017
Reassessing the importance of long-acting contraception.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- What Happened in Delaware Following a Statewide Contraceptive Initiative?The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Are births more likely to be intended following use of long-acting reversible contraceptives? An analysis of U.S. births in 2003-15.Population research and policy review · 2022Article
- Women's Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception for Birth Timing and Birth Stopping.Demography · 2021Article
- Understanding the extent of contraceptive non-use among women at risk of unintended pregnancy, National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2017.Contraception: X · 2020Article
- Patterns and trends in contraceptive use among women attending Title X clinics and a national sample of low-income women.Contraception: X · 2019Article
- A prospective measure of unintended pregnancy in the United States.Contraception · 2018Article
- Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: A Silver Bullet Solution for Unintended Pregnancy?American journal of public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral recent studies have highlighted the need for greater use of long-acting contraception. The most influential of these studies is the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, which was credited with substantially reducing participants' pregnancy risk by increasing their use of long-acting methods such as intrauterine devices and subdermal implants. However, because participants' rates of nonuse and condom use fell to zero at the outset of the intervention, it is possible that sizable pregnancy reductions could still have been achieved if enrollees had chosen shorter-acting, female-controlled methods such as oral contraception.
objectiveThe objective of the study was to estimate the proportion of the CHOICE Project's fertility impacts that could have been achieved without any increase in long-acting method use. STUDY
designThe FamilyScape 3.0 microsimulation model was used to estimate CHOICE's impact on pregnancy risk and to simulate the counterfactual effect of moving all nonusers and condom users onto shorter-acting, female-controlled methods. FamilyScape models the sexual and contraceptive behaviors of women in the United States between 2006 and 2010, which is the period when CHOICE was implemented.
resultsNearly three quarters of the CHOICE intervention's effects on pregnancy risk could have been achieved if participants had chosen shorter-acting, female-controlled methods over long-acting methods.
conclusionPrioritizing the adoption of long-acting contraception may not be the most advisable strategy for reducing unintended pregnancy. The most impactful interventions will likely be those that increase the use of female-controlled methods, long-acting or otherwise.
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.