Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31838124›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2020

Familiarity and acceptability of long-acting reversible contraception and contraceptive choice.

Rachel Paul, Bridget C Huysman, Ragini Maddipati, Tessa Madden

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A 3-year Retrospective Review of Contraceptive Initiation, Continuation, Switching, and Pregnancy Among Adolescents and Young Adults.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Preference for Contraceptive Implant Among Women 18-44 years old.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2021
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rachel PaulDivisions of Family Planning & Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Bridget C HuysmanDivisions of Family Planning & Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Ragini MaddipatiBrown School, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Tessa MaddenDivisions of Family Planning & Clinical Research, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. Electronic address: maddent@wustl.edu.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

EVALUATION AND TESTING OF A DECISION SUPPORT AID IN CONTRACEPTIVE DECISION MAKINGK23HD070979 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MADDEN, TESSA · 2012 to 2014
$367k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD070979
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContraceptive choice is a preference-sensitive decision that is affected by contraceptive attributes, patient experience, and reproductive history. Familiarity with and acceptability of specific contraceptive methods may influence patient decisions.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to describe the acceptability of and previsit familiarity with long-acting reversible contraception (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) compared with depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral contraceptive pills in women seeking contraceptive care and to investigate the relationship between acceptability and contraceptive choice. STUDY

designThis was a secondary analysis of a study that was designed to compare 2 contraceptive care programs conducted at 3 Midwest federally qualified health centers. After contraceptive counseling, participants completed a baseline interviewer-administered survey before the healthcare provider visit. We asked participants questions about previsit familiarity with and acceptability of the intrauterine device, implant, depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate, and oral contraceptive pills. We assessed familiarity using 2 questions: (1) Before today have you ever heard of the [method]? (2) Do you know any woman who has/has used the [method]? Acceptability was assessed for each method on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being "strongly dislike" and 10 being "strongly like." We dichotomized the scores into high acceptability (7-10) and low/moderate acceptability (0-6) for analysis. We examined differences in demographic and reproductive characteristics between women with high and low long-acting reversible contraception acceptability using the chi-square test. We used univariate and multivariable Poisson regressions to examine the relationship among participants' characteristics, method acceptability, and method choice. We adjusted for any covariate that changed the effect size of acceptability by >10%.

resultsThere were 1007 women included in the analysis: 900 women (89%) reported that they had heard of the intrauterine device, and 592 women (59%) knew someone who had used the intrauterine device. Eight hundred sixty-five (86%) women had heard of the implant, and 636 women (63%) knew someone who had used it. Knowledge of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral contraceptive pills was high (>98% for both). Five hundred seventy-six women (57%) found 1 or both long-acting reversible contraception methods highly acceptable. Women with high long-acting reversible contraception acceptability were more likely to be adolescents or aged 30-45 years, white, Hispanic, married/cohabitating, and uninsured and were less likely to desire a child in the next 1-3 years. They were more likely to desire a hormonal intrauterine device (90.5% vs 9.5%), copper intrauterine device (81.1% vs 18.9%), or implant (89.8% vs 10.2%) compared with women with low acceptability (P<.001). In adjusted analyses, women with high acceptability of an intrauterine device were more likely to desire an intrauterine device (adjusted relative risk, 9.62; 95% confidence interval, 6.42-14.42). Women with high acceptability of an implant were also more likely to desire one (adjusted relative risk, 8.74; 95% confidence interval, 6.17-12.38). Women were more likely to desire an intrauterine device or an implant if they knew someone who used the method. Previous use of the method and demographic factors were not associated with method choice.

conclusionPrevisit familiarity with intrauterine devices and implants was high in our federally qualified health centers population, although not as high as depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral contraceptive pills. In adjusted analyses, women who found an intrauterine device or implant highly acceptable and who knew someone who had used the method were more likely to choose those respective methods at the end of their visit.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorContraceptives, OralDrug ImplantsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntrauterine DevicesLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionPatient Acceptance of Health CareAdolescentAdultAge FactorsBlack or African AmericanContraceptive Agents, HormonalDelayed-Action PreparationsFemaleHispanic or LatinoHumansContraceptive Agents, HormonalContraceptives, OralDelayed-Action PreparationsDrug ImplantsMedroxyprogesterone Acetateacceptabilitycontraceptive counselingimplantintrauterine devicelong-acting reversible contraception

Identifiers

PMID31838124
PMCPMC7781163
OpenAlexW2996688872

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.