Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31185058›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2019

Specialist follow-up contraceptive support after abortion-Impact on effective contraceptive use at six months and subsequent abortions: A randomised controlled trial.

Usha Kumar, Louise Pollard, Lucy Campbell, Selin Yurdakul, Clara Cantalapiedra Calvete, Bola Coker, Tao Chen, Abdel Douiri

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Usha KumarDepartment of Sexual Health and HIV, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9619-3238
Louise PollardDepartment of Sexual Health and HIV, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Lucy CampbellAcademic Department of Sexual Health and HIV, King's College London, Weston Education Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Selin YurdakulDepartment of Sexual Health and HIV, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Clara Cantalapiedra CalveteDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Bola CokerKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Tao ChenDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.
Abdel DouiriDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health Sciences, King's College London, Addison House, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10663
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the impact of specialist contraceptive support after abortion on effective contraceptive use at six months and subsequent abortions within two years.

methodsMulticentre randomised controlled trial among women undergoing induced abortion in three London boroughs. Allocation was through electronically concealed stratified randomisation by centre, blinding clinicians and participants to arm allocation until interventions. Control group received standard care, comprising advice to follow up with their general practitioner or contraceptive clinic as needed. Intervention group additionally received specialist contraceptive support via telephone or face-to-face consultation at 2-4 weeks and 3 months post-abortion. Primary outcome was rate of effective contraceptive use at six months post-abortion. Secondary outcomes were subsequent abortions within two years.

results569 women were recruited between October 2011 and February 2013, randomised to intervention (282) and control (287) groups; 290 (142 intervention, 148 control) were available for primary outcome analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups in effective contraceptive use after abortion (62%, vs 54%, p = 0·172), long-acting contraceptive use (42% versus 32%, p = 0·084), and subsequent abortion (similar rates, at 1 year: 10%, p = 0·895, between 1-2 years: 6%, p = 0·944). Per-protocol analysis showed those who received the complete intervention package were significantly more likely to use effective contraception (67% versus 54%, p = 0·048), in particular long-acting contraception (49% versus 32%, p = 0·010) and showed a non-significant reduction in subsequent abortions within 2 years (at 1 year: 5% versus 10%, p = 0·098; and between 1-2 years: 3% versus 6%, p = 0·164, respectively).

conclusionsStructured specialist support post-abortion did not result in significant use of effective contraception at six months or reduction in subsequent abortions within two years. Participants engaging with the intervention showed positive effect on effective contraception at six months post-abortion. The potential benefit of such intervention may become evident through further studies with increased patient participation.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsReferral and ConsultationRegistriesAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLondonContraceptive Agents

Identifiers

PMID31185058
PMCPMC6559659
OpenAlexW2949745831

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.