Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33621581›Full record

ArticleContraception2021

Contraceptive method type and satisfaction, confidence in use, and switching intentions.

Julia R Steinberg, Daniel Marthey, Liyang Xie, Michel Boudreaux

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Estimating Prevalence of Abortion Using List Experiments: Findings from a Survey of Women in Delaware and Maryland.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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

4 authors.

Julia R SteinbergDepartment of Family Science, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States; Maryland Population Research Center, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States. Electronic address: jrsteinb@umd.edu.
Daniel MartheyMaryland Population Research Center, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States; Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Liyang XieMaryland Population Research Center, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States; Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States.
Michel BoudreauxMaryland Population Research Center, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States; Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD, United States.

Funding

MARYLAND POPULATION RESEARCH CENTERR24HD041041 · NICHD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI HOFFERTH, SANDRA L · 2001 to 2016
$6.6M
Sci-Tech Core-Maryland Population Research CenterP2CHD041041 · NICHD · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI MICHAEL S. RENDALL · 2018 to 2026
$3.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041041NICHD NIH HHS R24 HD041041
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe examined whether contraceptive method type, satisfaction with use, and confidence in correct use were independently associated with switching intentions, a precursor of switching behaviors. STUDY

designData were from a probability-based sample survey carried out in Delaware and Maryland in 2016 and 2017 among women ages 18 to 44. Women's current contraceptive methods were classified into 5 categories: coitally-dependent methods (barrier methods, withdrawal, and natural family planning); oral contraceptive pills, patches, and rings; injections; implants; and intrauterine contraception (IUC). Satisfaction, confidence, and switching intentions were dichotomized into being very versus less satisfied, being completely versus less confident, and having very low versus not very low switching intentions. We conducted binomial logistic regression to examine whether method type, satisfaction, and confidence were independently associated with having very low switching intentions, adjusting for a range of covariates including sociodemographics, perceived health, religious attendance frequency, sexual, contraceptive, and reproductive experiences, and state of residence (Maryland or Delaware).

resultsAmong 1,077 women using reversible contraception, those using IUC relative to implants, pills, patches, or rings, and coitally-dependent methods were more likely to have very low switching intentions. Among all survey respondents, those who were very satisfied and those who were completely confident in correct use were also more likely to report very low switching intentions.

conclusionsUsing IUC, being very satisfied, and being very confident in correct use were independently associated with having very low switching intentions. IMPLICATIONS: These results suggest that those using IUC have very low intentions to switch for reasons in addition to satisfaction-level with their method. Other aspects of using IUC such as ease of use, perceived barriers to switching, or having very low switching intentions before beginning IUC may be such reasons.

Indexed as

IntentionPersonal SatisfactionAdolescentAdultContraceptionContraception BehaviorContraceptives, OralFemaleHumansYoung AdultContraceptives, OralConfidenceContraceptive methodSatisfactionSwitching intentions

Identifiers

PMID33621581
PMCPMC8286312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.