Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28697112›Full record

ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2017

Contraception After Delivery Among Publicly Insured Women in Texas: Use Compared With Preference.

Joseph E Potter, Kate Coleman-Minahan, Kari White, Daniel A Powers, Chloe Dillaway, Amanda J Stevenson, Kristine Hopkins, Daniel Grossman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Novel Approach to Postpartum Contraception Provision Combined with Infant Care: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Where Do Reproductive-Aged Women Want to Get Contraception?Journal of women's health (2002) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Understanding contraceptive failure: an analysis of qualitative narratives.Women's reproductive health (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

8 authors.

Joseph E PotterPopulation Research Center, University of Texas, Austin, Texas; the College of Nursing, University of Colorado-Denver, Denver, Colorado; Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; the Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado-Boulder, Boulder, Colorado; and ANSIRH, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Kate Coleman-Minahan
Kari White
Daniel A Powers
Chloe Dillaway
Amanda J Stevenson
Kristine Hopkins
Daniel Grossman

Funding

Population Research CenterR24HD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI UMBERSON, DEBRA J. · 2002 to 2016
$8.4M
Scientific & Technical CoreP2CHD042849 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI MARK D. HAYWARD · 2017 to 2026
$5.2M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD042849NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD042849
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess women's preferences for contraception after delivery and to compare use with preferences.

methodsIn a prospective cohort study of women aged 18-44 years who wanted to delay childbearing for at least 2 years, we interviewed 1,700 participants from eight hospitals in Texas immediately postpartum and at 3 and 6 months after delivery. At 3 months, we assessed contraceptive preferences by asking what method women would like to be using at 6 months. We modeled preference for highly effective contraception and use given preference according to childbearing intentions using mixed-effects logistic regression testing for variability across hospitals and differences between those with and without immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) provision.

resultsApproximately 80% completed both the 3- and 6-month interviews (1,367/1,700). Overall, preferences exceeded use for both-LARC: 40.8% (n=547) compared with 21.9% (n=293) and sterilization: 36.1% (n=484) compared with 17.5% (n=235). In the mixed-effects logistic regression models, several demographic variables were associated with a preference for LARC among women who wanted more children, but there was no significant variability across hospitals. For women who wanted more children and had a LARC preference, use of LARC was higher in the hospital that offered immediate postpartum provision (P<.035) as it was for U.S.-born women (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, 95% CI 1.17-3.69) and women with public prenatal care providers (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.13-3.69). In the models for those who wanted no more children, there was no significant variability in preferences for long-acting or permanent methods across hospitals. However, use given preference varied across hospitals (P<.001) and was lower for black women (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12-0.55) and higher for U.S.-born women (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.36-3.96), those 30 years of age and older (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.07-3.09), and those with public prenatal care providers (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.18-3.51).

conclusionLimited use of long-acting and permanent contraceptive methods after delivery is associated with indicators of health care provider and system-level barriers. Expansion of immediate postpartum LARC provision as well as contraceptive coverage for undocumented women could reduce the gap between preference and use.

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorDelivery, ObstetricPostpartum PeriodAdolescentAdultAge FactorsCohort StudiesConsumer BehaviorContraceptionEthnicityFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHumansInsurance, HealthOdds RatioPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID28697112
PMCPMC5563159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.