ArticleBMC women's health2020
Correlates of use of withdrawal for contraception among women in Vietnam.
Article in BMC women's health, 2020. 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.
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
Abstract
backgroundDespite its relatively low effectiveness, withdrawal is a common contraceptive practice. In Vietnam, health concerns about hormonal contraception are strong and account for substantial method discontinuation. Given the paucity of evidence on withdrawal, our objective was to identify correlates of using withdrawal among women not desiring pregnancy.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data from a cross-sectional study of sexually-active adult women attending a public hospital in Hanoi, who did not desire pregnancy. We enrolled a stratified sample of women using the intrauterine device, combination oral contraception, or neither method. Participants completed a questionnaire on demographics and reproductive history and behaviors. We used multinomial logistic regression to evaluate correlates of using a tier 3 contraception method (without withdrawal) and using withdrawal (alone or with a tier 3 method) compared to the referent category of using a tier 1 or 2 method (without withdrawal).
resultsOf the 489 participants in the analysis, 52.3% reported using tier 1 or 2 method (without withdrawal); 19.8% reported tier 3 contraception (without withdrawal) and 27.9% reported using withdrawal (alone or with a tier 3 method). Compared to those using a tier 1 or 2 method, women using withdrawal had lower odds of reporting that avoiding pregnancy was very important or important to them (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7). Women using withdrawal had higher odds of reporting that their husband/partner refuses to give them money for household expenses, even when he has the money (aOR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.4-5.6).
conclusionsWomen using withdrawal might have less relationship power than nonusers. They also might rely on the practice because they are more ambivalent about pregnancy.
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.