ArticleJournal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology2020
Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Attitudes and Acceptability in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Key to Patient-Centered Contraceptive Counseling.
Article in Journal of pediatric and adolescent gynecology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Do We Measure Contraceptive Method Preferences? Evidence From a Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Factors associated with unintended pregnancy and contraceptive practices in justice-involved adolescent girls in Australia.PloS one · 2024Article
- Development of a clinical questionnaire to support contraception decisions in an adolescent reproductive health clinic in Colorado.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2023Article
- Pediatric Resident Perspectives on Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Training: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Trainees.The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2023Article
- Barriers for multiparous women to using long-term contraceptive methods in Southeast Asia: case study in Philippines and Indonesia.BMC public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo examine the attitudes of adolescent and young adults (AYA) toward long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), and to assess how attitudes are associated with acceptability.
designSurvey.
settingChildren's Hospital Colorado Adolescent Family Planning Clinic in Aurora, Colorado. PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, AND
main outcome measuresYoung persons 14-24 years of age presenting for any type of visit between March and August 2018.
resultsA total of 332 participants were enrolled; the majority (62.3%) had high LARC acceptability. We found 5 "attitude" factors: 77.7% of the sample endorsed "Effective" attitudes (eg, wants most effective method), 37.3% endorsed "Good attributes" (eg, discreet, convenient), 23.1% endorsed "Scary" (eg, fears device will move), 16.1% endorsed "Bad for health," (eg, too many side effects), and 9% endorsed "Not for me" (eg, concerns about pain). Although participants who endorsed "Effective" (OR 6.60, 95% CI 3.01-14.49) and "Good attributes" (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.51-6.66) were more likely to have high LARC acceptability than those who endorsed "Scary" (OR 0.28, 95% CI: (0.13-0.61)) and "Not for me" (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.41) factors, approximately 10% of participants with high LARC acceptability endorsed "Scary" or "Bad for health" attitudes, whereas 54% of those with low LARC acceptability endorsed "Effective" attitudes.
conclusionAlthough most participants had high LARC acceptability and valued contraceptive effectiveness, the association between LARC attitudes and acceptability is nuanced. Providers should identify and discuss young people's contraceptive knowledge, attitudes, and acceptability.
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.