ArticleStudies in family planning2020
Reconceptualizing Measurement of Emergency Contraceptive Use: Comparison of Approaches to Estimate the Use of Emergency Contraception.
Article in Studies in family planning, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Progestin intrauterine devices versus copper intrauterine devices for emergency contraception.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Capturing Emergency Contraceptive Pill Use: Critical Reflections on Measurement and Reporting.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Let's Talk About Sex: Improving Measurement of Contraceptive Use in Cross-Sectional Surveys by Accounting for Sexual Activity Recency.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Estimated use of emergency contraception (EC) remains low, and one reason is measurement challenges. The study aims to compare EC use estimates using five approaches. Data come from Performance Monitoring and Accountability 2020 surveys from 10 countries, representative sample surveys of women aged 15 to 49 years. We explore EC use employing the five definitions and calculate absolute differences between a reference definition (percentage of women currently using EC as the most effective method) and each of the subsequent four, including the most inclusive (percentage of women having used EC in the past year). Across the 17 geographies, estimated use varies greatly by definition and EC use employing the most inclusive definition is statistically significantly higher than the reference estimate. Impact of using various definitions is most pronounced among unmarried sexually active women. The conventional definition of EC use likely underestimates the magnitude of EC use, which has unique programmatic implications.
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.