Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29386937›Full record

ReviewOpen access journal of contraception2016

Postpartum family planning: current evidence on successful interventions.

Cassandra Blazer, Ndola Prata

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open access journal of contraception, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cassandra BlazerBixby Center for Population, Health, and Sustainability, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Ndola PrataBixby Center for Population, Health, and Sustainability, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
University of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We reviewed existing evidence of the efficacy of postpartum family planning interventions targeting women in the 12 months postpartum period in low- and middle-income countries. We searched for studies from January 1, 2004 to September 19, 2015, using the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations to assess evidence quality. Our search resulted in 26 studies: 11 based in sub-Saharan Africa, six in the Middle East and North Africa, and nine in Asia. Twenty of the included studies assessed health facility-based interventions. Three were focused on community interventions, two had community and facility components, and one was a workplace program. Overall quality of the evidence was moderate, including evidence for counseling interventions. Male partner involvement, integration with other service delivery platforms, such as prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and immunization, and innovative product delivery programs may increase knowledge and use during the postpartum period. Community-based and workplace strategies need a much stronger base of evidence to prompt recommendations.

Indexed as

birth spacingcontraceptionfamily planninginterventionsless developed countriespostpartum periodsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID29386937
PMCPMC5683159
OpenAlexW2322862732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.