Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30342635›Full record

SynthesisAmerican journal of preventive medicine2018

Youth-Friendly Family Planning Services for Young People: A Systematic Review Update.

Anna W Brittain, Ana Carolina Loyola Briceno, Karen Pazol, Lauren B Zapata, Emily Decker, Julia M Rollison, Nikita M Malcolm, Lisa M Romero, Emilia H Koumans

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in American journal of preventive medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Client Preferences for Contraceptive Counseling: A Systematic Review.American journal of preventive medicine · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Barriers to contraception access and use among youth: A scoping review in high-income countries.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  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

9 authors.

Anna W BrittainDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: abrittain@cdc.gov.
Ana Carolina Loyola BricenoOffice of Population Affairs, HHS, Washington, District of Columbia.
Karen PazolDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Lauren B ZapataDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Emily DeckerOffice of Population Affairs, HHS, Washington, District of Columbia.
Julia M RollisonAtlas Research, Washington, District of Columbia.
Nikita M MalcolmAtlas Research, Washington, District of Columbia.
Lisa M RomeroDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Emilia H KoumansDivision of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextYouth-friendly family planning services may improve youth reproductive health outcomes. A systematic review conducted in 2011 was updated in 2016 to incorporate recent data examining the effects of youth-friendly family planning services on reproductive health outcomes and the facilitators and barriers facing young people in accessing family planning services. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed, POPLINE, EMBASE, and other databases were used to identify relevant articles published from March 2011 through April 2016. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria and were added to 19 studies from the review conducted in 2011. Of these, seven assessed the effect of youth-friendly services on outcomes: two showed a positive effect on reducing teen pregnancy, three on contraceptive use, and three on knowledge and patient satisfaction (not mutually exclusive). Facilitators or barriers were described in 32 studies. However, none were RCTs and most were at high risk for bias due to selection, self-report, and recall bias among others.

conclusionsThe studies in this review suggest some positive effects of youth-friendly family planning services on reproductive health outcomes, but the need for more rigorous research persists. This review identified numerous factors relevant to young people's access to family planning services, reaffirming findings from the initial review: young people value confidentiality, supportive provider interaction, specialized provider training, and the removal of logistic barriers. Further, it illuminates the importance young people place on receiving comprehensive, client-centered family planning counseling. These findings should be considered when developing, implementing, and evaluating reproductive health services for young people. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Indexed as

Adolescent Health ServicesFamily Planning ServicesAdolescentConfidentialityContraception BehaviorCounselingFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPregnancyPregnancy in AdolescenceUnited StatesUnited States Dept. of Health and Human Services

Identifiers

PMID30342635
PMCPMC6707512

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.