Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29544520›Full record

ReviewReproductive health2018

Assessing the validity and reliability of self-report data on contraception use in the MObile Technology for Improved Family Planning (MOTIF) randomised controlled trial.

Chris Smith, Phil Edwards, Caroline Free

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyLetterReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01823861 (Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT01823861 nacompletednot on this map

Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning

TypeinterventionalSponsorMarie Stopes InternationalRan2013 to 2014Enrolled500ConditionsContraception, Post-abortion Family Planning, mHealthArmsMobile phone-based intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Chris SmithDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WC1E7HT, London, UK. christopher.smith@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9238-3202
Phil EdwardsDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WC1E7HT, London, UK.
Caroline FreeDepartment of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, WC1E7HT, London, UK.
University of London · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/L012251/1Medical Research Council (GB) MR/L012251/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA variety of different approaches to measuring contraceptive use have been used or proposed, either to assess current use or adherence over time, using subjective or objective measures. This paper reports an overview of approaches to measuring adherence to the oral contraceptive, intra-uterine device, sub-dermal implant, and injectable and describes how we assessed contraception use in the MObile Technology for Improved Family Planning (MOTIF) trial in Cambodia. MAIN BODY: We summarise and discuss advantages and disadvantages of different subjective and objective approaches to measuring adherence to the oral contraceptive, intra-uterine device, sub-dermal implant, and injectable such as self-reports, clinic records, electronic monitoring devices, clinical examination and biomarkers. For the MOTIF trial, we did not consider it feasible to measure objective contraception use as many participants lived a long distance from the clinic and we were concerned whether it was appropriate to ask women to return to clinic for a physical examination simply to verify self-report information already provided. We aimed to assess the validity of the four-month data with 50 participants, calculating the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported data compared with objective measurement. For the 46 valid measurements obtained, the sensitivity and specificity was 100% for self-reported contraception use compared to objective measurement but this study had some limitations. To assess reliability of self-report data we compared calendar data collected on effective contraception use at months 1-4 post-abortion, collected separately at four and 12 months. Agreement ranged from 80 to 84% with a kappa statistic ranging from 0·59 to 0·67 indicating fair to good agreement.

conclusionThere is no perfect method of assessing contraception use and researchers designing future studies should give consideration of what to measure, for example current use or detailed patterns of use over time, and remain mindful of what will be feasible and acceptable to the study population. Although self-reported data on contraception use are considered less reliable, and prone to social desirability bias, it is often the standard approach for contraception research and provides data comparable to previous studies.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01823861 . Registered: March 30, 2013.

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSelf ReportAbsorbable ImplantsAdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, OralFamily Planning ServicesFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansIntrauterine DevicesReproducibility of ResultsTelemedicineYoung AdultContraceptive Agents, FemaleContraceptives, OralContraceptionDigital healthFamily planningmHealthRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID29544520
PMCPMC5856309
OpenAlexW2802385732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.