Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29201424›Full record

ArticleContraception and reproductive medicine2017

Women's perceptions of contraceptive efficacy and safety.

Roshni Kakaiya, Lia L Lopez, Anita L Nelson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception and reproductive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Experiences with Family Planning amongst Persons with Mental Health Problems: A Nationwide Patient Survey.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Roshni KakaiyaTouro University California, 1310 Club Drive, Mare Island, Vallejo, CA 94592 USA.
Lia L LopezUniversity of California, Davis, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616 USA.
Anita L NelsonLA BioMed at Harbor UCLA, 1124 W Carson St, Torrance, CA 90502 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdoption of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices has been less than might be expected given their superior efficacy and convenience. The purpose of this study was to assess knowledge and beliefs held by women, which may influence their contraceptive choices and theirongoing utilization of contraceptive methods.

methodsEnglish speaking, nonpregnant, reproductive-age women, who were not surgically sterilized, were individually interviewed to obtain limited demographic characteristics and to assess their knowledge about the efficacy of various contraceptive methods in typical use and about the relative safety of oral contraceptives.

resultsA convenience sample of 500 women aged 18-45 years, with education levels that ranged from middle school to postdoctoral level was interviewed. The efficacy in typical use of both combined oral contraceptives and male condoms was correctly estimated by 2.2%; over two-thirds of women significantly

conclusionsThe majority of reproductive aged women surveyed substantially overestimated the efficacy of the two most popular contraceptive methods, often saying that they were 99% effective. Women with higher education levels were most likely to overestimate efficacy of oral contraceptives. Women of all ages and education levels significantly overestimated the health hazards of oral contraceptives compared to pregnancy. Overestimation of effectiveness of these methods of contraception, may contribute to lower adoption of implants and intrauterine devices. When individualizing patient counselling, misperceptions must be identified and addressed with women of all educational backgrounds.

trial registrationNot applicable.

Indexed as

Contraceptive attitudesContraceptive efficacyPerception of oral contraceptive health hazards

Identifiers

PMID29201424
PMCPMC5683240

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.