Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32704380›Full record

ArticleDigital health

An interactive website for informed contraception choice: randomised evaluation of

Judith Stephenson, Julia V Bailey, Ana Gubijev, Preethy D'Souza, Sandy Oliver, Ann Blandford, Rachael Hunter, Jill Shawe, Greta Rait, Nataliya Brima and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06307002 (Evaluating the Impact of a Contraception Education Game), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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.

NCT06307002 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluating the Impact of a Contraception Education Game: What's My Method? on Contraceptive Self-efficacy and Clinical Outcomes in Barbados

TypeinterventionalSponsorQuinnipiac UniversityRan2024 to 2024Enrolled70ConditionsContraception BehaviorArmsPlaying a contraception education videogame
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Judith StephensonUCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8852-0881
Julia V BaileyeHealth Unit, Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5001-0122
Ana GubijevUCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, UK.
Preethy D'SouzaDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, UK.
Sandy OliverDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, UK.
Ann BlandfordUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3198-7122
Rachael HunterPriment Clinical Trial Unit, Research Department of Primary Care & Population Health, UCL, Royal Free Campus, UK.
Jill ShaweInstitute of Health and Community, University of Plymouth, UK.
Greta RaitPriment Clinical Trial Unit, Research Department of Primary Care & Population Health, UCL, Royal Free Campus, UK.
Nataliya BrimaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, UK.
Andrew CopasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, UK.
University College London · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity of Johannesburg · ZAUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

Department of Health 11/3009/04Department of Health 13/79/09Medical Research Council G0701749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveImproving use of effective contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy is a global priority, but misperceptions and concerns about contraception are common. Our objective was to evaluate an interactive website to aid informed choice of contraception.

methodsThe

findingsThere was no significant difference between intervention and control groups in the proportion of women using LARC [30.4% intervention

interpretationThe RESEARCH IN CONTEXT: Preventing unintended pregnancy through effective use of contraception is essential for women's health, but choosing between different contraceptive methods can be challenging, and the opportunity for adequate discussion during routine consultations is often constrained. EVIDENCE BEFORE THIS STUDY: We conducted two systematic literature reviews: 1) Factors influencing contraception choice, uptake and use: a meta-synthesis of systematic reviews; and 2) Effectiveness of interactive digital interventions (IDI) for contraception choice, uptake and use. For the first review we searched PubMed, CDSR, Epistemonikos, DoPHER, DARE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Campbell Library, NIHR Health Technology Assessment, and Health Evidence Canada databases for systematic reviews which addressed contraceptive choice, uptake or use, from 2000 to 2017. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017081521 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=81521. We synthesised the findings of 18 systematic reviews of mostly moderate or high quality. They highlighted the importance of women's knowledge, beliefs, perceptions of side effects and health risks, as well as relationship status, social network, economic and healthcare factors on contraception choice and use. For the second review, we searched 23 electronic databases, trials registers and reference lists for randomised controlled trials of IDI for contraception, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and PsycINFO, from start date to June 2017. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017081636. We found only five randomised trials of IDI, all from the USA. Risk of bias prevented synthesis of results. www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=81636. ADDED VALUE OF THIS STUDY: Women's common concerns about contraception - fear of hormones, weight gain, cancer, infertility, mood changes, breaks from contraception and changes in bleeding patterns - underpinned development of a new interactive website (www.contraceptionchoices.org). IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE: Interactive digital interventions (websites) can aid contraception choice, but other intervention research is needed to address wider influences on unintended pregnancy, including partner views, friends, family, the media, wider society and experiences with healthcare professionals. Future research could examine the impact of the website in different settings, e.g. schools or different countries. We hypothesise that use of the website during contraceptive consultations might improve the efficiency or quality of consultation, for both patients and healthcare providers. Appropriate methodology and time-scale for evaluating digital health interventions remains a key question.

Indexed as

Contraceptioncontraceptive methodsdigital healthinteractive digital interventionrandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32704380
PMCPMC7359649
OpenAlexW3037984434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.