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.
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.
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.
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.
Mobile Technology for Improved Family Planning
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal hormonal contraception use and childhood cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of epidemiology · 2026Pooled it
- How common is natural conception in women who have had a livebirth via assisted reproductive technology? Systematic review and meta-analysis.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness of doctors' advice on non-prescription antibiotic use: a randomized controlled trial, China.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2026Trial
- Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2021Trial
- Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2020Trial
- Moderate Associations Between the Use of Levonorgestrel-releasing Intrauterine Device and Metabolomics Profile.The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- High adherence to intermittent and continuous use of a contraceptive vaginal ring among women in a randomized controlled trial in Kigali, Rwanda.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Easing anxiety symptoms through leisure activities during social isolation: Findings from nationally representative samples.PloS one · 2024Article
- Socioeconomic inequalities in adverse pregnancy outcomes in India: 2004-2019.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Implicit Perception of Differences between NLP-Produced and Human-Produced Language in the Mentalizing Network.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Article
- Article
- Improving the evidence base for digital health interventions to increase contraception use.BMJ health & care informatics · 2021Article
- Free contraception and behavioural nudges in the postpartum period: evidence from a randomised control trial in Nairobi, Kenya.BMJ global health · 2018Article
- Non-adherence among women enrolled in a contraceptive vaginal ring use study in Kisumu, Kenya, 2014-2015.Journal of global health reports · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.