ArticleContraception2021
Perceptions of long-acting reversible contraception among women in an urban U.S. jail.
Article in Contraception, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postpartum contraception plans among a cohort of pregnant incarcerated individuals.Contraception · 2026Article
- "My story is good… It's not like that for all": Uneven access to contraception among incarcerated women in New South Wales, Australia.Reproductive health · 2026Article
- Gender-responsive treatment to improve outcomes for women and girls in correctional settings: foundations, limitations and innovations.Health & justice · 2025Review
- Building an implementation framework to address unmet contraceptive care needs in a carceral setting: a systematic review.Health & justice · 2023Article
- Article
- Obstetricians' experiences caring for pregnant people experiencing incarceration who request permanent contraception.Women's health (London, England)Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveGiven incarcerated women's lack of access to contraception prior to, during, and post-incarceration and concerns of potential reproductive coercion in correctional settings, the objective was to explore incarcerated women's perspective of making provider-controlled methods of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) available in an U.S. urban jail. STUDY
designUsing a concurrent mixed-methods approach, we explored contraceptive use and method choice prior to and after incarceration among women detained in a U.S. urban jail. Focus group discussions primarily focused on incarcerated women's perceptions of LARC.
resultsIn the 30 days prior to arrest, 28 of 116 women (24%) were using a non-barrier contraceptive method. Methods of LARC were used the least, and the majority (n = 74, 64%) were not interested in initiating LARC in jail. Concern about the potential side effects of LARC was the main reason for disinterest followed by distrust in correctional health care staffs' qualifications. Study participants did not reference coercion as a concern.
conclusionsApprehension about the training of health care providers and cleanliness of the detention facility outweighed participants' concerns regarding autonomy restrictions associated with provider-controlled methods of LARC. Despite limited interest in initiating LARC use while incarcerated, participants supported making all forms of contraception more accessible in jail settings. IMPLICATIONS: Understanding incarcerated women's reproductive and contraceptive desires, including their perceptions of LARC, will help improve the provision of equitable reproductive health care in correctional settings. Our findings highlight the importance of contextual factors in determining women's willingness to access contraceptive care in carceral settings, if available.
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.