ArticleContraception2018
Cognitive interviews to improve a patient-centered contraceptive effectiveness poster.
Article in Contraception, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Two Educational Posters on Contraceptive Knowledge and Intentions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2019Trial
- Exploring women's interpretations of survey questions on pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes: cognitive interviews in Iganga Mayuge, Uganda.Reproductive health · 2024Article
- "I feel like it gives me what I need to know": A qualitative study on adolescent perceptions of two contraceptive decision aids.Contraception · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo refine the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s contraceptive education poster using patient-centered design. STUDY
designWe conducted cognitive interviews with 26 women aged 18-44 living in North Carolina who spoke and read English and had ever had sex. We interviewed women about both a CDC and a patient-centered poster in alternating order. Participants were contraceptive users and non-users that we selected purposively to have a range of characteristics that might influence their perspective: age, race/ethnicity, previous births and pregnancies, contraceptive method(s) used in the past three months, pregnancy intentions, and numeracy. The initial response rate for participants was 55%. We used cognitive theory to code interviews for comprehension, relevance, and acceptability, as well as design and overall preference. We structured the 26 interviews into four rounds and revised the patient-centered poster after each round to improve these measures.
resultsBy the final round, 83% of women preferred the patient-centered poster. The majority of women favored this poster's relevance (86%), and design (100%) and ease of comprehension (86%). Women raised few concerns about the acceptability of the final version of the patient-centered poster. Women identified many issues with both posters that the researchers did not anticipate, highlighting the value of patient-centered design approaches to educational materials.
conclusionsThis study refined a patient-centered poster so that its language is clear and it addresses the informational needs of its target audience. IMPLICATIONS: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office of Population Affairs recommend that clinicians educate women about contraception. This study developed a poster that could help clinicians follow this recommendation. Before widespread implementation, more research is needed to evaluate the poster's impact on contraceptive knowledge and behaviors.
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.