ArticleContraception2020
Reasons for hormonal contraceptive use in a cohort of African-American women living in the Detroit area.
Article in Contraception, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling of prominent oral contraceptive agents and applications in drug-drug interactions.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
- Combined oral contraceptive utilization and uterine fibroid incidence: A prospective study in a cohort of African-American women.PloS one · 2024Article
- Employment Status in the United States and Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception or Moderately Effective Contraception before and after the Affordable Care Act: National Survey of Family Growth 2006-2010 and 2015-2017.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize reasons for hormonal contraceptive (HC) use in 1,455 African-American women, aged 23-35 years. STUDY
designThe community-based cohort members were recruited from the Detroit, Michigan area in 2010-2012. HC history was collected via telephone interview.
resultsSeven percent reported HC use exclusively for non-contraceptive purposes, and 49% reported non-contraceptive reasons in addition to contraception. Non-contraceptive reasons were reported for all HC types, but were most common for combined oral contraceptives. Primary reasons were for irregular cycles, heavy bleeding, and pain.
conclusionsIn this large cohort of Black women, HC use to treat menstrual problems was common. IMPLICATIONS: HCs were commonly used for both pregnancy prevention and management of menstrual symptoms, but some women used HCs exclusively for menstrual symptom relief. The importance for women of non-contraceptive reasons for HC use may not be adequately recognized, and published data on Black women's reasons for HC use remain limited.
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.