ArticleContraception: X2020
A risk scoring tool for predicting Kenyan women at high risk of contraceptive discontinuation.
Article in Contraception: X, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contributions of side effects to contraceptive discontinuation and method switch among Kenyan women: a prospective cohort study.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe developed and validated a pragmatic risk assessment tool for identifying contraceptive discontinuation among Kenyan women who do not desire pregnancy. STUDY
designWithin a prospective cohort of contraceptive users, participants were randomly allocated to derivation (
resultsThe overall contraceptive discontinuation rate was 36.9 per 100 woman-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.3-44.9). The predictors of discontinuation selected for the risk score included use of a short-term method or copper intrauterine device (vs. injectable or implant), method continuation or switch (vs. initiation), < 9 years of completed education, not having a child aged < 6 months, and having no spouse or a spouse supportive of family planning (vs. having a spouse who has unsupportive or uncertain attitudes towards family planning). AUC at 24 weeks was 0.76 (95% CI 0.64-0.87) with 70.0% sensitivity and 78.6% specificity at the optimal cut point in the derivation cohort. Discontinuation was 3.8-fold higher among high- vs. low-risk women (95% CI 2.33-6.30). AUC was 0.68 (95% CI 0.47-0.90) in the validation cohort. A simplified score comprising routinely collected variables demonstrated similar performance (derivation-AUC: 0.73 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; validation-AUC: 0.73 [95% CI 0.51-0.94]). Positive predictive value in the derivation cohort was 31.4% for the full and 28.1% for the simplified score.
conclusionsThe risk scores demonstrated moderate predictive ability but identified large proportions of women as high risk. Future research is needed to improve sensitivity and specificity of a clinical tool to identify women at high risk for experiencing method-related challenges. IMPLICATIONS: Contraceptive discontinuation is a major driver of unmet contraceptive need globally. Few tools exist for identifying women who may benefit most from additional support in order to meet their contraceptive needs and preferences. This study developed and assessed the validity of a provider-focused risk prediction tool for contraceptive discontinuation among Kenyan women using modern contraception. High rates of early discontinuation observed in this study emphasize the necessity of investing in efforts to develop new contraceptive technologies and stronger delivery systems to better align with women's needs and preferences for voluntary family planning.
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.