ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2017
Healthcare Provider Attitudes Regarding Contraception for Women with Obesity.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Opportunities lost: Barriers to increasing the use of effective contraception in the Philippines.PloS one · 2019Trial
- Contraceptive care for patients with bigger bodies in the US: Evaluation of a provider training intervention.Preventive medicine reports · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhether providers who regularly provide family planning services consider contraceptive methods as unsafe for women with obesity is unknown.
methodsWe analyzed questionnaire responses received from December 2009 to March 2010 from 635 office-based physicians and 1323 Title X clinic providers delivering family planning services, who were randomly sampled (response rate 65%) before the release of national evidence-based contraception guidelines. We examined provider and clinical setting characteristics and clinic patient demographics for association with provider misconceptions about safety of combined oral contraceptives (COCs), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), or intrauterine devices (IUDs) for women with obesity. If providers considered methods as unsafe or do not know, we categorized those responses as misconceptions. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsA substantial proportion of respondents had misconceptions about the safety of COCs (31%), DMPA (24%), copper (Cu) (18%), and levonorgestrel (LNG)-IUDs (16%) for women with obesity. Provider type was associated with increased odds of misconceptions for all four methods compared with office-based obstetrician/gynecologists. Not having the method available onsite was associated with safety misconceptions of DMPA (aOR 1.90, 95% CI 1.07-3.36), Cu-IUD (aOR 4.19, 95% CI 1.51-11.61), and LNG-IUD (aOR 5.25, 95% CI 1.67-16.49).
conclusionWhile the majority of providers considered all four contraceptive methods safe for women with obesity, substantial proportions had misconceptions about safety of COCs, DMPA, and IUDs. Provider education, particularly among certain specialties, is needed to increase knowledge regarding moderate and highly effective contraceptive methods among this patient population.
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.