ArticleReproductive health2019
Quality of websites about long-acting reversible contraception: a descriptive cross-sectional study.
Article in Reproductive health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality of consumer-oriented websites containing information about the second trimester ultrasound examination during pregnancy.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundToday, there are various short- and long-acting contraceptive alternatives available for those who wish to prevent unintended pregnancy. Long-acting reversible contraception are considered effective methods with a high user satisfaction. High-quality information about contraception is essential in order to empower individuals to reach informed decisions based on sufficient knowledge. Use of the Web for information about contraception is widespread, and there is a risk that those who use it for this purpose could come in contact with sources of low quality.
objectiveThe overarching aim was to investigate the quality of websites about long-acting reversible contraception.
methodsSwedish client-oriented websites were identified through searches in Google (n = 46 included websites). Reliability and information about long-acting reversible contraceptive choices were assessed by two assessors with the DISCERN instrument, transparency was analyzed with the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmarks, completeness was assessed with inductive content analysis and readability was analyzed with Readability Index.
resultsThe mean DISCERN was 44.1/80 (SD 7.7) for total score, 19.7/40 (SD 3.7) for reliability, 22.1/35 (SD 4.1) for information about long-acting reversible contraceptive choices, and 2.3/5 (SD 1.1) for overall quality. A majority of the included websites had low quality with regard to what sources were used to compile the information (n = 41/46, 89%), when the information was produced (n = 40/46, 87%), and if it provided additional sources of support and information (n = 30/46, 65%). Less than half of the websites adhered to any of the JAMA benchmarks. We identified 23 categories of comprehensiveness. The most frequent was contraceptive mechanism (n = 39/46, 85%) and the least frequent was when contraception may be initiated following an abortion (n = 3/46, 7%). The mean Readability Index was 42.5 (SD 6.3, Range 29-55) indicating moderate to difficult readability levels, corresponding to a grade level of 9.
conclusionsThe quality of client-oriented websites about long-acting reversible contraception is poor. There is an undeniable need to support and guide laypersons that intend to use web-based sources about contraceptive alternatives, so that they may reach informed decisions based on sufficient knowledge.
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.