Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31690652›Full record

ArticleCMAJ open

Household income and contraceptive methods among female youth: a cross-sectional study using the Canadian Community Health Survey (2009-2010 and 2013-2014).

Elizabeth Nethery, Laura Schummers, K Suzanne Maginley, Sheila Dunn, Wendy V Norman

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elizabeth NetherySchool of Population and Public Health (Nethery, Maginley, Norman) and Department of Family Practice (Schummers, Norman), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Dunn), University of Toronto; Women's College Research Institute (Dunn), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Public Health & Policy (Norman), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK elizabeth.nethery@alumni.ubc.ca.
Laura SchummersSchool of Population and Public Health (Nethery, Maginley, Norman) and Department of Family Practice (Schummers, Norman), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Dunn), University of Toronto; Women's College Research Institute (Dunn), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Public Health & Policy (Norman), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
K Suzanne MaginleySchool of Population and Public Health (Nethery, Maginley, Norman) and Department of Family Practice (Schummers, Norman), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Dunn), University of Toronto; Women's College Research Institute (Dunn), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Public Health & Policy (Norman), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Sheila DunnSchool of Population and Public Health (Nethery, Maginley, Norman) and Department of Family Practice (Schummers, Norman), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Dunn), University of Toronto; Women's College Research Institute (Dunn), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Public Health & Policy (Norman), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Wendy V NormanSchool of Population and Public Health (Nethery, Maginley, Norman) and Department of Family Practice (Schummers, Norman), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; Department of Family and Community Medicine (Dunn), University of Toronto; Women's College Research Institute (Dunn), Toronto, Ont.; Faculty of Public Health & Policy (Norman), London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLow socioeconomic status is one of many barriers that may limit access to family planning services. We aimed to examine the relation between household income and contraceptive methods among female youth in Canada.

methodsOur study population included sexually active females aged 15-24 who were trying to avoid pregnancy. We used cross-sectional data from the 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey to compare household income and other sociodemographic covariates for those using oral contraceptives, injectable contraceptives, condoms or a dual method (condoms plus oral or injectable contraceptives).

resultsOf female youth at risk for unintended pregnancy, 59.2% reported using oral contraceptives, 29.0% used dual methods, 16.8% used condoms only, 2.5% used injectable contraceptives and 13.6% did not use contraception. In multiple regression models, lower annual household income (< $80 000) was associated with decreased use of oral contraceptives (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.91) and dual methods (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.91), increased use of condoms (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.67) and injectable contraceptives (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98-2.92), and a greater risk of contraceptive nonuse (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94-1.50).

interpretationWe found that lower household income was associated with decreased use of oral contraceptives and increased reliance on injectable contraceptives and condoms only. Young, low-income females may face barriers to accessing the full range of contraceptive methods available in Canada. Easier access to affordable contraception may decrease the number of female youth at risk for unintended pregnancy due to financial barriers.

Identifiers

PMID31690652
PMCPMC6944121
OpenAlexW2985772299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.