SynthesisContraception2022
Couples-based interventions and postpartum contraceptive uptake: A 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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Effect of couple-based health education on male-partners knowledge and attitude towards maternity waiting homes in rural Ethiopia: a cluster-randomized trial.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Association Between Negative Pregnancy Desires and Recent Condomless Sex Among Couples in Vietnam.Journal of sex research · 2026Article
- Attitudes and perceptions towards postpartum contraceptive use among seroconcordant partners with HIV in rural Mozambique: a qualitative study.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveSystematically review the existing evidence about couples-based interventions and postpartum contraceptive uptake and generate recommendations for future research. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL through June 7, 2021. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies with a couples-based intervention assessing postpartum contraceptive uptake. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias with RoB-2 (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2) for randomized and ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - Interventions) for observational studies. Data were synthesized in tables, figures, and a narrative review.
resultsA total of 925 papers were identified, 66 underwent full text review, and 17 articles, which included 18 studies - 16 randomized, 2 observational - were included. The lack of intervention and outcome homogeneity precluded meta-analysis and isolating the effect of partner involvement. Four studies were partner-required, where partner involvement was a required component of the intervention, and 14 were partner-optional. Unadjusted risk differences ranged from 0.01 to 0.51 in favor of couples-based interventions increasing postpartum contraceptive uptake versus standard of care. Bias assessment of the 16 randomized studies classified 8, 3, and 5 studies as at a high, some concern, and low risk of bias. Common sources of bias included intervention non-adherence and missing outcome data. One observational study was at a high and the other at a low risk of bias.
conclusionsFuture studies that assess couples-based interventions must clearly define and measure how partners are involved in the intervention and assess how intervention adherence impacts postpartum contraceptive uptake.
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.