Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31136612›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Potential user interest in new long-acting contraceptives: Results from a mixed methods study in Burkina Faso and Uganda.

Rebecca L Callahan, Aurélie Brunie, Amelia C L Mackenzie, Madeleine Wayack-Pambè, Georges Guiella, Simon P S Kibira, Fredrick Makumbi

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Understanding how theyGates open research · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rebecca L CallahanContraceptive Technology Innovation, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5808-0320
Aurélie BrunieHealth Services Research, Washington DC, United States of America.
Amelia C L MackenzieContraceptive Technology Innovation, Durham, NC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1721-805X
Madeleine Wayack-PambèInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population, Université de Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Georges GuiellaInstitut Supérieur des Sciences de la Population, Université de Ouagadougou, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.
Simon P S KibiraSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Fredrick MakumbiSchool of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Makerere University · UGUniversité Joseph Ki-Zerbo · BF

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Method-related concerns represent an important cause of contraceptive non-use and discontinuation. User preferences must be incorporated into the design of new contraceptive technologies to ensure product success and improve family planning outcomes. We assessed preferences among potential users in Burkina Faso and Uganda for six contraceptive methods currently under development or ready for introduction: a new copper intra-uterine device (IUD), a levonorgestrel intra-uterine system, a new single-rod implant, a biodegradable implant, a longer-acting injectable, and a method of non-surgical permanent contraception. Questions were added to nationally-representative PMA2020 household surveys that asked 2,743 and 2,403 women in Burkina Faso and Uganda, respectively, their interest in using each new method. We assessed factors associated with interest through multivariable logistic regression models. We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 398 women, 78 men, and 52 family planning providers and key informants to explore perceived advantages and disadvantages of the methods. Respondents expressed interest in using all new methods, with greatest interest in the longer-acting injectable (77% in Burkina Faso, 61% in Uganda), followed by a new single-rod implant. Least interest was expressed in a new copper IUD (26% Burkina Faso, 15% in Uganda). In both countries, women with less education had higher odds of interest in a longer-acting injectable. Interest in most new methods was associated with desiring a method lasting longer than one year and acceptance of lack of menstrual bleeding as a contraceptive side effect. Perceived advantages and disadvantages were similar between countries, including concerns about menstrual side effects and fear of the biodegradable nature of the biodegradable implant. Potential users, their partners, and providers are interested in new longer-acting methods, however, familiar forms including the injectable and implant may be the most immediately acceptable. A biodegradable implant will require clear counseling messages to allay potential fears.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultBurkina FasoContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptive Agents, HormonalDrug ImplantsFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHormonal ContraceptionHumansIntrauterine Devices, CopperIntrauterine Devices, MedicatedLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionMaleMiddle AgedContraceptive Agents, HormonalDrug Implants

Identifiers

PMID31136612
PMCPMC6538161
OpenAlexW2948004740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.