Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29863217›Full record

ArticleSouthern medical journal2018

Contraceptive Practices, Preferences, and Barriers Among Abortion Clients in North Carolina.

Amy G Bryant, Ilene S Speizer, Jennifer C Hodgkinson, Alison Swiatlo, Siân L Curtis, Krista Perreira

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Southern medical journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Reproductive Health Services in Abortion-Providing Clinics: A Scoping Review of Provision and Policy Contexts.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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy G BryantFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Family Planning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, and the Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Ilene S SpeizerFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Family Planning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, and the Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Jennifer C HodgkinsonFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Family Planning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, and the Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Alison SwiatloFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Family Planning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, and the Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Siân L CurtisFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Family Planning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, and the Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
Krista PerreiraFrom the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Family Planning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, the Department of Maternal and Child Health, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina, and the Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Research Services CoreP2CHD050924 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI KAREN B GUZZO · 2015 to 2026
$9.6M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD050924
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAbortion clinics provide an ideal setting for women to receive contraceptive care because the women served may not have other contacts with the health system and are at risk for unintended pregnancies. The objective of this study was to understand practices, preferences, and barriers to use of contraception for women obtaining abortions at clinics in North Carolina.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of abortion clients and facilities at 10 abortion clinics in North Carolina. We collected data on contraceptive availability at each clinic. We collected individual responses on women's experiences obtaining contraception before the current pregnancy and their intentions for future use of contraception.

resultsFrom October 2015 to February 2016, 376 client surveys were completed at 9 clinics, and 10 clinic surveys were completed. Almost one-third of women (29%) reported that they had wanted to use contraception in the last year but were unable. Approximately three-fourths of respondents (76%) stated that they intend to use contraception after this pregnancy. Approximately one-fifth of women stated that would like to use long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) after this abortion. Only the clinics that accepted insurance for abortion and other services provided LARC at the time of the abortion (40%).

conclusionsThis study provides a unique, statewide view into the contraceptive barriers for women seeking abortion in North Carolina. Addressing the relatively high demand for LARC after abortion could help significantly reduce unintended pregnancy and recourse to abortion in North Carolina.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAmbulatory Care FacilitiesContraception BehaviorCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansNorth CarolinaPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29863217
PMCPMC5989576
OpenAlexW2805667396

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.