Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33164729›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

An interactive website to aid young women's choice of contraception: feasibility and efficacy RCT.

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

Open access · diamondAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. "I liked having my voice heard:" a feasible, rapid approach for codesigning a contraceptive counseling curriculum.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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 3 countries.

Judith StephensonUCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8852-0881
Julia V BaileyDepartment of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5001-0122
Ann BlandfordUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3198-7122
Nataliya BrimaInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6930-5166
Andrew CopasInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8968-5963
Preethy D'SouzaDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3604-2280
Anasztazia GubijevUCL Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4317-5866
Rachael HunterHealth Economics, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7447-8934
Jill ShaweInstitute of Health and Community, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2766-7302
Greta RaitPRIMENT Clinical Trials Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, Royal Free Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7216-7294
Sandy OliverDepartment of Social Science, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9571-269X
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

backgroundEffective use of contraception can reduce numbers of unintended pregnancies, but misunderstandings and concerns about contraception abound. Increasingly, women seek health-care information online.

objectivesTo develop an interactive website to aid informed choice of contraceptive method, including long-acting reversible contraception (Phase I), and test its effectiveness in a parallel, single-blind randomised trial (Phase II). Approval came from London - Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/LO/0112). SETTING AND

participantsFor both phases, women aged 15-30 years were recruited from general practice, sexual health services, maternity services, community pharmacies and an abortion service.

designIn Phase I, we conducted three systematic literature reviews, a review of YouTube (YouTube, LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) videos about contraception, and focus groups and interviews with young women to explore barriers to and concerns and misperceptions about contraception. We then iteratively co-designed an interactive website, Contraception Choices [URL: www.contraceptionchoices.org (accessed June 2020)], with young women and a software company. In Phase II, we evaluated the website through a randomised trial that began as a feasibility trial. Early demand for Contraception Choices stimulated a design change from a feasibility to an efficacy trial, with follow-up for clinical outcomes at 3 and 6 months. A randomisation list was incorporated into the trial software program to allocate participants to the intervention (website) or control group (standard care).

interventionContraception Choices is a co-designed, evidence-based, interactive website to aid informed choice of contraception. It provides information about different methods, addresses common concerns and offers tailored contraceptive options in response to individual preferences.

main outcome measuresQualitative - participant views and experience of the intervention, assessed through qualitative interviews. Quantitative primary outcomes - follow-up rate at 6 months in the initial feasibility trial, using a long-acting reversible contraception method, and satisfaction with contraceptive method at 6 months in the efficacy trial.

resultsA total of 927 women were randomised online to the website ( LIMITATIONS: We did not include intermediate measures, such as knowledge of contraceptive methods, intention to change method or confidence in discussing contraception with a health-care professional, which may have indicated other benefits of using the website. In future, the website should be studied in different settings (e.g. schools and in routine practice) to see whether or not it improves the quality or efficiency of contraceptive consultations.

conclusionsOur systematic review indicated wide-ranging influences on women's use of contraception globally. The website, Contraception Choices, was very popular with young women and contraception service providers. It was not associated with statistically significant differences in use of long-acting reversible contraception or satisfaction with contraceptive method at 6 months.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN13247829.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

InternetAdolescentAdultChoice BehaviorCommunity Pharmacy ServicesContraceptionFeasibility StudiesFemaleGeneral PracticeHealth EducationHumansLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionMaternal Health ServicesPatient PreferenceReproductive Health ServicesSingle-Blind MethodCONTRACEPTIONCONTRACEPTIVE METHODSDIGITAL HEALTHINTERACTIVE DIGITAL INTERVENTIONRANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL

Identifiers

PMID33164729
PMCPMC7681569
OpenAlexW3103976749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.