ArticleContraception2019
Changes in US health care provider attitudes related to contraceptive safety before and after the release of National Guidance.
Article in Contraception, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in Intrauterine Device Use Before and After National Eligibility Guideline Changes.O&G open · 2026Article
- The use of LNG-IUS-19.5 mg in daily gynecological routine practice in Germany: data from the Kyleena™ Satisfaction Study (KYSS).Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2024Observational
- Exploring and Monitoring Privacy, Confidentiality, and Provider Bias in Sexual and Reproductive Health Service Provision to Young People: A Narrative Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Contraindications to Hormonal Contraception Among Postpartum Women in Texas.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2021Article
- Removing Unnecessary Medical Barriers to Contraception: Celebrating a Decade of the U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (USMEC) is the first national guidance containing evidence-based recommendations for contraception. We describe provider attitudes about contraceptive safety before and after the 2010 USMEC release. STUDY
designWe conducted two cross-sectional mailed surveys using different nationwide samples of office-based physicians and Title X clinic providers before (2009-2010) and after (2013-2014) the USMEC release. We compared the proportion of providers reporting select contraceptive methods as safe for women with specific characteristics or medical conditions before and after the USMEC release and conducted multivariable logistic regression to adjust for provider characteristics.
resultsFor the following select characteristics for which the USMEC classifies specific contraceptive methods as safe (Category 1 or 2), a significantly (p<.05) higher proportion of providers reported the method safe after versus before the USMEC release: intrauterine devices (IUDs) for adolescents (79.8% versus 60.2%), IUDs for women with HIV (72.4% versus 50.6%), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) for women with obesity (89.5% versus 76.1%), and DMPA for women with history of bariatric surgery (87.6% versus 73.9%). These differences remained significant after adjustment for provider characteristics.
conclusionsWhile we observed many positive changes in health care provider attitudes related to contraception safety after the USMEC release, gaps remain. Continuing education and evidence-based training for providers, and ensuring office and health center protocols address medical eligibility for contraception for the full range of characteristics included in the USMEC might bridge remaining gaps and increase delivery of high-quality contraception care. IMPLICATIONS: Gaps between evidence and provider attitudes remain that can inform future efforts to improve contraceptive service delivery.
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.