ArticleWomen's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
Contraceptive Method Uptake at Title X Health Centers in Utah.
Article in Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Title X family planning program previously supported contraception for Utah clients with low incomes, yet its contributions may not have been sufficient to allow clients to select their preferred methods, including long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs). In this study, we compare the contraceptive method choices of self-paying clients with low incomes at three participating Title X health centers in Salt Lake County, Utah, before and after the removal of additional cost barriers.
methodsWe used retrospective medical record review to assess clients' contraceptive choices during two 6-month periods: a control period with Title X-assisted sliding scale payment schedules (n = 2,776) and an intervention period offering no-cost contraceptive care (n = 2,065). We used logistic regression to identify the likelihood of selecting a LARC during the intervention period and multinomial regression to identify the selection probability of different types of available LARCs.
resultsDuring the control period, 16% of participants chose a LARC compared with 26% in the intervention period (p ≤ .001). During the intervention period, participants were 1.8 times more likely to select LARCs (95% confidence interval, 1.65-2.13) compared with non-LARC methods, holding covariates constant. In the multinomial regression, participants were three times more likely during the intervention period to select an implant than a pill, patch, or ring, holding all other covariates constant (odds ratio, 3.08; 95% confidence interval, 2.47-3.83).
conclusionsTitle X clients offered contraceptive methods without cost more frequently selected a LARC method. Title X funding reductions may impede individuals' access to their contraceptive methods of choice.
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.