ArticleContraception2019
Access to contraception in local health departments, four Midwest states, 2017-2018.
Article in Contraception, 2019. 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.
- Evaluating Shared Decision-Making in Postpartum Contraceptive Counseling Using Objective Structured Clinical Examinations.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Article
- Coverage of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception has improved birth intervals for at-risk populations.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDescribe contraception availability at local health departments (LHDs) serving largely rural populations. STUDY
designWe invited administrators at LHDs located in four Midwest states to participate in an online survey conducted from September 2017-April 2018. We collected data on clinic staffing, patient population, receipt of Title X funds, and services provided to assess the proportion of LHDs providing any prescription method of contraception; secondary outcomes included healthcare staff training level and other reproductive health services provided.
resultsOf 344 LHDs invited, 237 administrators completed the survey (68.9%). Three-quarters served rural populations. One-third (34.6%) provided short-acting hormonal contraception; however, availability varied by state (Kansas: 58.0%, 40/69; Missouri: 37.5%, 33/88; Nebraska: 16.7%, 3/18; Iowa: 9.7%, 6/62; p<.01). Only 8.4% of LHDs provided IUDs; 7.6% provided implants, and 5.9% provided both methods. LHDs in Nebraska and Kansas provided any long-acting method more frequently (Kansas: 17.4%, Nebraska: 16.7%, Iowa: 8.1%, Missouri: 4.6%; p=.04). LHDs receiving Title X funds (27.0%) were much more likely to provide any prescription contraception (85.1% vs. 14.2%, p<.01). Most LHDs relied on registered nurses (RNs) to provide medical care; 81.0% reported that RNs provided care≥20 days per month. Pregnancy testing was widely available in Missouri and Kansas (>87%) and less commonly available in Iowa and Nebraska (<18%) (p<.01).
conclusionLHDs in these states are currently ill-equipped to offer comprehensive contraceptive services. Women seeking care at LHDs have limited, if any, contraceptive options. IMPLICATIONS: Local health departments in the Midwest, serving a largely rural population, rarely offer prescription contraception, especially long-acting reversible methods. Women residing in settings without broad access to publicly-funded healthcare providers may have limited access to comprehensive contraceptive services. Efforts to ensure rural access are needed.
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.