ArticleMaternal and child health journal2017
Emergency Contraception in Mexico: Trends in Knowledge and Ever-Use 2006-2014.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethnic inequalities and contraception in Latin America and the Caribbean: a scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Documenting the Provision of Emergency Contraceptive Pills Through Youth-Serving Delivery Channels: Exploratory Mixed Methods Research on Malawi's Emergency Contraception Strategy.Global health, science and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- The current status of emergency contraception use in reproductive-aged Korean women: a population-based internet survey.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Supporting contraceptive choice in self-care: qualitative exploration of beliefs and attitudes towards emergency contraceptive pills and on-demand use in Accra, Ghana and Lusaka, Zambia.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives A package of interventions to introduce emergency contraception (EC) to Mexico was implemented, resulting in the addition of EC to the national family planning guidelines in 2004. We describe EC knowledge and use among women in Mexico over time. Methods We used the 2006, 2009, and 2014 of waves of a nationally representative demographic survey (ENADID). We assessed EC knowledge and usage in women ages 15-29 who are not using permanent methods and tested whether EC knowledge and use is changing over time after controlling for socio-demographic characteristics using logistic regression. Results Our sample included n = 99,223 (population N = 40,234,355) women ages 15-29. Overall, knowledge of EC increased over time: 62% in 2006 to 79% in 2009 to 83% in 2014 (p < 0.001). Among young women who have used contraception (n = 42,883; N = 16,816,701), the proportion that reported EC use increased from 3 to 11% to 29% (p < 0.001). Compared to non-users, women who had ever used EC were more likely to be using no method of contraception (44 vs. 35%) or barrier method (22 vs. 17%). Demographic factors including lower wealth, lower education, indigenous status and rural living are significantly associated with less EC knowledge and use. Stratified multivariate analysis found that demographic disadvantages magnify lower EC use among rural residents compared to non-rural residents. Conclusions for Practice Knowledge and use of EC are growing rapidly in Mexico, but disparities persist in demographically disadvantaged women, particularly those living in rural areas. Women who use EC appear to be at higher risk of unintended pregnancy based on current contraceptive use.
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.