Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470950›Full record

Trial reportContraception2018

Not seeking yet trying long-acting reversible contraception: a 24-month randomized trial on continuation, unintended pregnancy and satisfaction.

David Hubacher, Hannah Spector, Charles Monteith, Pai-Lien Chen

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Contraception, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Attitudes Toward the Copper IUD in Sweden: A Survey Study.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Immediate Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Review of Insertion and Device Reimbursement Policies.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    Review
  15. Satisfaction, Resignation, and Dissatisfaction with Long-Acting Reversible Contraception among Low-Income Postpartum Texans.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

4 authors.

David HubacherFHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701. Electronic address: dhubacher@fhi360.org.
Hannah SpectorPlanned Parenthood South Atlantic, 100 S. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603.
Charles MonteithPlanned Parenthood South Atlantic, 100 S. Boylan Avenue, Raleigh, NC 27603.
Pai-Lien ChenFHI 360, 359 Blackwell Street, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27701.

Funding

Long-acting Reversible Contraception: New Research to Reduce Unintended PregnancyR01HD067751 · NICHD · FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL · PI HUBACHER, DAVID · 2011 to 2013
$1.4M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD067751
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo measure the 24-month impact on continuation, unintended pregnancy and satisfaction of trying long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in a population seeking short-acting reversible contraception (SARC). STUDY

designWe enrolled 916 women aged 18-29 who were seeking pills or injectables in a partially randomized patient preference trial. Women with strong preferences for pills or injectables started on those products, while others opted for randomization to LARC or SARC and received their methods gratis. We estimated continuation and unintended pregnancy rates through 24months. Intent-to-treat principles were applied after method initiation for comparing incidence of unintended pregnancy. We also examined how satisfaction levels varied by cohort and how baseline negative LARC attitudes were associated with satisfaction over time.

resultsForty-three percent chose randomization, and 57% chose the preference option. Complete loss to follow-up was<2%. The 24-month LARC continuation probability was 64.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 56.6-70.9], statistically higher than SARC groups [25.5% (randomized) and 40.0% (preference)]. The 24-month cumulative unintended pregnancy probabilities were 9.9% (95% CI: 7.2-12.6) (preference-SARC), 6.9% (95% CI: 3.3-10.6) (randomized-SARC) and 3.6% (95% CI: 1.8-6.4) (randomized-LARC). Statistical tests for comparing randomized groups on unintended pregnancy were mixed: binomial at 24-month time point (p=.02) and log-rank survival probabilities (p=.14 for first pregnancies and p=.07 when including second pregnancies). LARC satisfaction was high (80% happy/neutral, 73% would use LARC again, 81% would recommend to a friend). Baseline negative attitudes toward LARC (27%) were not clearly associated with satisfaction or early discontinuation.

conclusionsThe decision to try LARC resulted in high continuation rates and substantial protection from unintended pregnancy over 24months. Despite participants' initial desires to begin short-acting regimens, they had high satisfaction with LARC. Voluntary decisions to try LARC will benefit large proportions of typical SARC users. IMPLICATIONS: Even women who do not necessarily view LARC as a first choice may have a highly satisfying experience and avoid unintended pregnancy if they try it.

Indexed as

Pregnancy, UnplannedAdolescentAdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, OralFemaleHumansInjectionsLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionPatient PreferencePatient SatisfactionPregnancySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, OralAcceptability, contraceptive continuationAdherenceLong-acting reversible contraceptionRandomizedUnintended pregnancy

Identifiers

PMID29470950
PMCPMC6331179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.