ArticleContraception2017
Measuring oral contraceptive adherence using self-report versus pharmacy claims data.
Article in Contraception, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family Planning Reminder Systems: An Updated Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Recent Intimate Partner Violence and Oral Contraceptive Pill Adherence in a Cohort of Reproductive-Aged Women.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2022Trial
- Measuring contraceptive self-efficacy in women: the Turkish validity and reliability study.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- Depression, Contraception, and Ambivalence Concerning Fertility.Archives of sexual behavior · 2024Article
- Twelve month oral contraceptive pill prescriptions: Role of policy mandates on utilization.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2022Article
- Reproductive empowerment and contraceptive self-care: a systematic review.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveProportion of Days Covered (PDC) is a measure of medication adherence that uses prescription claims data to describe the proportion of days that the patient possessed medication. The objective of this study is to compare PDC and self-report as measures of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) adherence and to identify individual-level predictors of adherence. STUDY
designIn a sample of 384 OCP users, self-report was compared with PDC as measures of adherence over the past 3 months. Patient-level variables were examined for associations with adherence using multivariable logistic regression models.
resultsHigh adherence, defined as missing ≤1 pill per month, was 76%, 68% and 54% as measured by self-report, PDC and both measures, respectively. Younger women (ages 18-25 and 26-33 years) were significantly less likely to have high adherence on both measures than women in the 34-40 age group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.51 and adjusted OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.62, respectively). Other predictors of high adherence on both self-report and PDC measures included being in a relationship (adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.14-4.64, compared with unpartnered women), Protestant religion (adjusted OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.07-4.06, compared with women with no religious affiliation) and higher contraceptive self-efficacy (adjusted OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.03-2.58).
conclusionPDC derived from pharmacy claims, or a combination of PDC and self-report measures, may be an alternative to self-report alone for measuring OCP adherence. IMPLICATIONS: PDC may be a potential tool for measuring women's adherence to OCPs and should be validated in future studies.
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.