Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28298197›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2017

What do young Australian women want (when talking to doctors about contraception)?

Denisa L Goldhammer, Catriona Fraser, Britta Wigginton, Melissa L Harris, Deborah Bateson, Deborah Loxton, Mary Stewart, Jacqueline Coombe, Jayne C Lucke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Different Perceptions among Women and Their Physicians Regarding Contraceptive Counseling: Results from the TANCO Survey in Brazil.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2020
    Article
  13. Prescribing for adolescents.Australian prescriber · 2019
    Review
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

9 authors.

Denisa L GoldhammerAustralian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. D.Goldhammer@latrobe.edu.au.
Catriona FraserSocial Research Unit, WorkSafe Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Britta WiggintonSchool of Public Health, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Melissa L HarrisResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Deborah BatesonFamily Planning NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Deborah LoxtonResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Mary StewartFamily Planning NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jacqueline CoombeResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Jayne C LuckeAustralian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccess to most contraceptives in Australia requires a prescription from a doctor, and it has been shown that doctors can influence women's decision-making with respect to contraception. However, little research has documented how women experience their interactions with doctors within the context of a contraceptive consultation. Understanding such experiences may contribute to our knowledge of factors that may influence women's contraceptive decisions more broadly.

methodsWe report on findings from the Contraceptive Use, Pregnancy Intentions and Decisions (CUPID) survey of young Australian women, a large-scale longitudinal study of 3,795 women aged 18-23 years. We performed a computer-assisted search for occurrences of words that indicated an interaction within the 1,038 responses to an open-ended question about contraception and pregnancy. We then applied a combination of conventional and summative content analysis techniques to the 158 comments where women mentioned an interaction about contraception with a doctor.

resultsOur analysis showed that women desire consistent and accurate contraception information from doctors, in addition to information about options other than the oral contraceptive pill. Some young women reported frustrations about the choice limitations imposed by doctors, perceived by these women to be due to their young age. Several women expressed disappointment that their doctor did not fully discuss the potential side-effects of contraceptives with them, and that doctors made assumptions about the woman's reasons for seeking contraception. Some women described discomfort in having contraception-related discussions, and some perceived their doctor to be unsupportive or judgmental.

conclusionsBoth the content and the process of a contraceptive consultation are important to young Australian women, and may be relevant contributors to their choice and ongoing use of a contraceptive method. These findings provide useful insights into aspects of the patient-provider interaction that will enhance the efficacy of the contraceptive consultation. It is recommended that doctors adopt patient-centred, shared decision-making strategies to support women in making choices about contraception that suit their individual circumstances. We also acknowledge the need to involve other health care providers, other than doctors, in educating, informing, and assisting women to make the best contraceptive choice for themselves.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePhysician-Patient RelationsAdolescentAge FactorsAustraliaContraceptionContraception BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesDecision MakingFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesPatient SatisfactionPerceptionPregnancyQualitative ResearchCommunicationContraceptionPatient-provider InteractionQualitative ResearchReproductive HealthYoung Women

Identifiers

PMID28298197
PMCPMC5353872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.