Observational studyContraception2021
Clinic factors associated with utilization of a pregnancy-intention screening tool in community health centers.
Observational study in Contraception, 2021. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRoutine pregnancy-intention screening in the primary care setting is a promising practice to help patients achieve their reproductive goals. We aim to describe the utilization of a pregnancy-intention screening tool integrated in the electronic health record (EHR) of a national network of community health centers (CHCs) and identify clinic-level factors associated with tool use. STUDY
designWe conducted a clinic-level retrospective observational study to assess tool utilization during the first 3 years after the tool was made available in the EHR (November 2015 to October 2018). We describe characteristics of clinics with higher tool utilization (≥90th percentile) versus lower utilization (<90th percentile) and the types of providers who used the tool. We then employ negative binomial regression to identify independent clinic-level factors associated with tool utilization.
resultsAcross 194 clinics in our study sample which served 289,754 eligible female patients, the tool was used for 113,116 (39%). Medical assistants performed 60.3% of screenings and clinicians performed 11.2%. CHCs with higher tool utilization rates were more likely to be located in rural settings (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.07-2.87) and serve patient populations with higher proportions of women (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.24-1.41) and lower proportions of patients with non-English language preference (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.95).
conclusionsMany health centers utilized pregnancy-intention screening after an EHR-based tool was made available, though overall screening rates were low. IMPLICATIONS: Additional study of implementation strategies and effectiveness of pregnancy-intention screening tools is needed. Implementation of future pregnancy-intention screening interventions must be tailored to address clinic-level barriers and facilitators to screening.
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.