Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28986072›Full record

Trial reportAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2018

Contraception after medication abortion in the United States: results from a cluster randomized trial.

Corinne H Rocca, Suzan Goodman, Daniel Grossman, Kara Cadwallader, Kirsten M J Thompson, Elizabeth Talmont, J Joseph Speidel, Cynthia C Harper

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03519685 (UCSF College Health Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT03519685 nacompletednot on this map

UCSF College Health Study: A Cluster Randomized Trial on Contraceptive Training and Education at Community Colleges

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2018 to 2024Enrolled2,086ConditionsContraceptionArmsContraceptive Training and Education, Placebo Nutrition Education
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reproductive Health Services in Abortion-Providing Clinics: A Scoping Review of Provision and Policy Contexts.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Corinne H RoccaBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA. Electronic address: corinne.rocca@ucsf.edu.
Suzan GoodmanBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Daniel GrossmanBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA; Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA.
Kara CadwalladerPlanned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, Seattle, WA.
Kirsten M J ThompsonBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Elizabeth TalmontPlanned Parenthood of Northern, Central, and Southern New Jersey Inc, Morristown, NJ.
J Joseph SpeidelBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Cynthia C HarperBixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
University of California, San Francisco · USPlanned Parenthood · US

Funding

UCSF/Kaiser-DOR Program for Developing Independent Women's Health ResearchersK12HD052163 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI ADLER, NANCY E, BRINDIS, CLAIRE D. · 2005 to 2023
$9.3M
NICHD NIH HHS K12 HD052163
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding how contraceptive choices and access differ for women having medication abortions compared to aspiration procedures can help to identify priorities for improved patient-centered postabortion contraceptive care.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to investigate the differences in contraceptive counseling, method choices, and use between medication and aspiration abortion patients. STUDY

designThis subanalysis examines data from 643 abortion patients from 17 reproductive health centers in a cluster, randomized trial across the United States. We recruited participants aged 18-25 years who did not desire pregnancy and followed them for 1 year. We measured the effect of a full-staff contraceptive training and abortion type on contraceptive counseling, choice, and use with multivariable regression models, using generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis with shared frailty to model actual intrauterine device and subdermal implant initiation over 1 year.

resultsOverall, 26% of participants (n = 166) had a medication abortion and 74% (n = 477) had an aspiration abortion at the enrollment visit. Women obtaining medication abortions were as likely as those having aspiration abortions to receive counseling on intrauterine devices or the implant (55%) and on a short-acting hormonal method (79%). The proportions of women choosing to use these methods (29% intrauterine device or implant, 58% short-acting hormonal) were also similar by abortion type. The proportions of women who actually used short-acting hormonal methods (71% medication vs 57% aspiration) and condoms or no method (20% vs 22%) within 3 months were not significantly different by abortion type. However, intrauterine device initiation over a year was significantly lower after the medication than the aspiration abortion (11 per 100 person-years vs 20 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.89). Implant initiation rates were low and similar by abortion type (5 per 100 person-years vs 4 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-6.59). In contrast to women choosing short-acting methods, relatively few of those choosing a long-acting method at enrollment, 34% of medication abortion patients and 53% of aspiration abortion patients, had one placed within 3 months. Neither differences in health insurance nor pelvic examination preferences by abortion type accounted for lower intrauterine device use among medication abortion patients.

conclusionDespite similar contraceptive choices, fewer patients receiving medication abortion than aspiration abortion initiated intrauterine devices over 1 year of follow-up. Interventions to help patients receiving medication abortion to successfully return for intrauterine device placement are warranted. New protocols for same-day implant placement may also help patients receiving medication abortion and desiring a long-acting method to receive one.

Indexed as

Abortifacient AgentsAbortion, InducedAdolescentAdultCondomsContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsCounselingFemaleHumansIntrauterine DevicesPregnancyUnited StatesYoung AdultAbortifacient AgentsContraceptive Agentsabortionimplantintrauterine devicelong-acting reversible contraceptionmedical abortionmedication abortionpostabortion contraceptionrandomized trial

Identifiers

PMID28986072
PMCPMC5997454
OpenAlexW2761568093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.