SynthesisContraception2022
Values and preferences for contraception: A global systematic review.
Synthesis in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Estetrol-based combined oral contraceptives: A systematic review of clinical outcomes.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review of the values and preferences regarding the use of injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis to prevent HIV acquisition.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2023Pooled it
- Contraception values and preferences of people living with HIV: A systematic review.Contraception · 2022Pooled it
- Health workers' values and preferences regarding contraceptive methods globally: A systematic review.Contraception · 2022Pooled it
- Postpartum Intrauterine Device Removal and Access to Removal in the 18 Months Following an Intervention in Tanzania, Sri Lanka, and Nepal.Studies in family planning · 2026Trial
- Combined hormonal versus nonhormonal versus progestin-only contraceptives for postpartum contraception in lactating individuals.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Review
- Current Contraceptive Practices and Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Modality Preferences among Black and Non-Black Women in the United States: Implications for Bundled Messaging.Archives of sexual behavior · 2026Article
- An in-depth interview study of women's perspectives on the effects of contraceptive use on future fertility in Ethiopia and Kenya.SSM. Qualitative research in health · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing Contraceptive Use in Women Seeking First-Trimester Abortion Care: An Austrian Cross-Sectional Survey.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Shades of Contemplation: HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Decision-Making among Young Women in South Africa.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities of Contraceptive Preference-Use Match in the United States.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2025Article
- How Do We Measure Contraceptive Method Preferences? Evidence From a Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Detection of Problems Related to Hormonal Contraceptives in Community Pharmacy: Application of a Structured Questionnaire in Women of Childbearing Age.Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Acceptability of and preferences for long-acting injectable hormonal contraception among US women: evidence from a national cross-sectional online survey.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- A review of recommendations, efficacy, and patient safety for over-the-counter norgestrel for daily contraception.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Measuring contraceptive self-efficacy in women: the Turkish validity and reliability study.Primary health care research & development · 2025Article
- Exploring Adolescents' Contraceptive Preferences and Trade-Offs: Findings From a Discrete Choice Experiment in Kenya.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- How does the knowledge level of physicians and nurses working at primary health centers affect their preference for oral contraceptives in an inland Turkish province?BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Contraceptive risk events among family planning specialists: a cross sectional study.Reproductive health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify and synthesize original research on contraceptive user values, preferences, views, and concerns about specific family planning methods, as well as perspectives from health workers. STUDY
designWe conducted a systematic review of global contraceptive user values and preferences. We searched 10 electronic databases for qualitative and quantitative studies published from 2005 to 2020 and extracted data in duplicate using standard forms.
resultsOverall, 423 original research articles from 93 countries among various groups of end-users and health workers in all 6 World Health Organization regions and all 4 World Bank income classification categories met inclusion criteria. Of these, 250 (59%) articles were from high-income countries, mostly from the United States of America (n = 139), the United Kingdom (n = 29), and Australia (n = 23). Quantitative methods were used in 269 articles, most often cross-sectional surveys (n = 190). Qualitative interviews were used in 116 articles and focus group discussions in 69 articles. The most commonly reported themes included side effects, effectiveness, and ease/frequency/duration of use. Interference in sex and partner relations, menstrual effects, reversibility, counseling/interactions with health workers, cost/availability, autonomy, and discreet use were also important. Users generally reported satisfaction with (and more accurate knowledge about) the methods they were using.
conclusionsContraceptive users have diverse values and preferences, although there is consistency in core themes across settings. Despite the large body of literature identified and relevance to person-centered care, varied reporting of findings limited robust synthesis and quantification of the review results.
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.