Trial reportContraception2020
Evaluation of a computerized contraceptive decision aid: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Contraception, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 4 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailored and Interactive Mobile Telehealth Contraceptive Counseling Compared With In-Person Care: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of patient decision aids used pre-consult or in-consult on patient-clinician communication - secondary analysis of a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Pooled it
- Decisional Needs of Young Women (Aged 15-24 Years) in Contraceptive Choice: A Systematic Review.Patient preference and adherence · 2026Review
- A Web-Based Contraception Decision Tool for Individuals With Health Conditions in US Outpatient Clinics: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Affective Disorders: An Updated Review.Open access journal of contraception · 2025Review
- Patient-Centred Counselling Tools for Dispensing Contraceptives in Community Pharmacy Settings: A Systematic Review.Open access journal of contraception · 2024Review
- Sensitivity Analyses of a Scoring System for a Contraception Decision Aid.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Provider perspectives on a point-of-care tool to facilitate patient-centered contraceptive care among Latina/x patients in Baltimore, MD.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- Developing and Testing a Chatbot to Integrate HIV Education Into Family Planning Clinic Waiting Areas in Lusaka, Zambia.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of a contraceptive decision aid in reducing decisional conflict among women seeking reversible contraception. STUDY
designWe conducted a randomized trial of a computer-based decision aid compared to a control group for women presenting for reversible contraception at two clinics affiliated with an academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in decisional conflict, measured before and after the healthcare visit using the validated Decisional Conflict Scale. We hypothesized the decision aid would reduce the decisional conflict score by 10 points on a 100-point scale (0 = no conflict, 100 = high conflict) compared to the control group. Secondary outcomes included contraceptive method chosen and satisfaction with the healthcare visit.
resultsWe enrolled and randomized 253 women, and 241 had complete data for our primary outcome. Overall, pre-visit decisional conflict scores were low, reflecting low levels of decisional conflict in our sample; median score 15 (range 0-80) in the decision aid and 10 (0-85) in the control group (p = 0.45). Both groups had a similar reduction in median decisional conflict after the healthcare visit: -10 (-80 to 25) and -10 (-60 to 5) in the decision aid and control groups respectively (p = 0.99). Choice of contraception (p = 0.23) and satisfaction with healthcare provider (p = 0.79) also did not differ by study group.
conclusionsDecisional conflict around contraception was low in both groups at baseline. Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict, alter method choice, or impact satisfaction compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Use of a computerized contraceptive decision aid did not reduce decisional conflict or alter method choice compared to the control group among women choosing reversible contraception. Future studies could focus on testing the decision aid in different clinical settings, especially where barriers to providing comprehensive contraceptive counseling exist.
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.