Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28794891›Full record

ArticleFertility research and practice2017

Perceptıon scale of barrıers to contraceptıve use: a methodologıcal study.

Selma Sen, Aynur Cetinkaya, Aysel Cavuslar

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Fertility research and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Selma SenMidwifery Department, Faculty of Sciences, Celal Bayar University, 45100 Sehzadeler, Manisa, Turkey.
Aynur CetinkayaNursing Department, Faculty of Sciences, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
Aysel CavuslarHafsa Sultan Hospital, Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
Manisa Celal Bayar University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of this study was to design and develop the Perception Scale of Barriers to Contraceptive Use (PSBCU) as a measurement tool for the qualitative assessment of the barriers and obstacles women perceived with regard to contraceptive use or low rates of contraceptive use in women using family planning services.

methodThe data for this methodological study were collected using the face-to-face interview technique from 320 married women between the ages of 15-49 who were attending clinics at the Hafsa Sultan Hospital, CBU. The data collection tools used in the study, which was carried out from May to September 2014, were the "Introductory Information Form" and the "Perception Scale of Barriers to Contraceptive Use". Language validity and construct validity (explanatory factor analysis) were applied in order to test the validity of the Perception Scale of Barriers to Contraceptive Use.

resultsKaiser Meier Olkin (KMO) analysis was performed to determine the availability of the scale for the size of participants. The sample adequacy calculated as the KMO value was 0.916 and the Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (X

conclusionsThe study demonstrateded that the "Perception Scale of Barriers to Contraceptive Use" was valid and reliable. We believe that the scale is suitable for use by women in a family planning education and training programs in order to evaluate their situation. It should also be assessed for validity and reliability for different groups (adolescents, men, etc.).

Indexed as

Contraceptive methodObstaclesPerceptionScale development

Identifiers

PMID28794891
PMCPMC5543743
OpenAlexW2743041399

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.