Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213746›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2022

Evaluation of a fertility awareness-based shared decision-making tool part 1: Study design and impact on clinician knowledge.

Marguerite Duane, Virginia Martinez, Meghan Berry, Michael D Manhart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Marguerite DuaneFACTS, 1020 Kearny St NE, Washington DC 20017, USA.
Virginia MartinezFACTS, 1020 Kearny St NE, Washington DC 20017, USA.
Meghan BerryFACTS, 1020 Kearny St NE, Washington DC 20017, USA.
Michael D ManhartFACTS, 1020 Kearny St NE, Washington DC 20017, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of a Shared Decision-Making (SDM) tool for fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) of family planning. Methods: Clinicians familiar with at least one FABM were randomly invited to participate in a prospective cross-over study to compare usual practice to the use of the SDM tool when discussing FABMs with patients. Patients completed surveys pre- and post-office visit and six months later. The primary outcome explored the effect of online education on use of the SDM tool on clinicians' knowledge of FABMs. Results: Of 278 clinicians contacted, 54% could not be reached, and 15% did not provide women's health services. The 26 clinicians enrolled were experienced, with more than half recommending FABMs for ≥10 years, and 73% recommending more than one FABM to patients. Knowledge scores significantly improved after online training and use of the SDM tool (baseline mean score = 9.54 (scale of 0-12); post-training mean score = 10.73, Conclusions: Education about FABMs and training on use of the SDM tool improved knowledge scores even among an experienced cohort of clinicians. Innovation: The novel SDM tool can better equip clinicians to meet the rising patient interest in FABMs.

Indexed as

Family planningFertility awarenessMedical knowledgeShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID37213746
PMCPMC10194193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.