Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37493190›Full record

ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2023

Contraceptive use among women seeking an early induced abortion in Sweden.

Jenny Niemeyer Hultstrand, Elin Törnroos, Tanja Tydén, Margareta Larsson, Marlene Makenzius, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, Inger Sundström-Poromaa, Maria Ekstrand Ragnar

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Contraceptive use among women seeking an early induced abortion in Sweden.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2023
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jenny Niemeyer HultstrandDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2304-2006
Elin TörnroosDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tanja TydénDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2172-6527
Margareta LarssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8050-621X
Marlene MakenziusDepartment of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6014-6296
Kristina Gemzell-DanielssonDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-6516-1444
Inger Sundström-PoromaaDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-2491-2042
Maria Ekstrand RagnarDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-4735-6162
Uppsala University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SE

Funding

Lund University Medical Faculty FoundationUppsala Family Planning Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn spite of societal efforts to strengthen women's sexual and reproductive health in Sweden, many women have unmet contraceptive needs and the abortion rate remains high. The aim of this study was to investigate contraceptive use among abortion-seeking women. MATERIAL AND

methodsSwedish-speaking women seeking an induced abortion up to the end of gestational week 12 at seven hospitals filled out an anonymous paper questionnaire between January and June 2021. Data were analyzed using frequencies and cross-tabulations, and the Chi-square test was used to compare age-groups. Valid percentages are presented.

resultsIn total, 623 women participated. Median age was 29 years and 13% were born outside the Nordic countries. In the year preceding the abortion, condoms (37%, n = 228) were the most commonly used contraceptive method, followed by short-acting reversible contraception (SARC) (35%, n = 213) and withdrawal (25%, n = 152). Around one in five (n = 113) had not used any method in the year preceding the abortion. Sixteen percent (n = 96) had changed contraceptive method in the last year. At the time around conception, 15% (n = 90) reported use of SARC and 2% (n = 12) of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Four out of 10 women (n = 268) reported non-use of contraception at the time around conception, with a higher proportion among adolescents (70%, n = 30, P = 0.001). Among the women who responded to why they had not used any method (n = 387), the main reasons were that they did not believe they could become pregnant at that time (37%, n = 144) or had negative experiences from using contraceptives (32%, n = 123). A majority (88%, n = 527) planned to use contraception after the abortion. Of the women who had decided on method, 55% (n = 271) planned to use LARC, and 38% (n = 188) planned to use SARC.

conclusionThe unmet need for contraception appears to be high among abortion-seeking women in Sweden. Many had discontinued contraception use during the last year, and the main reasons for avoidance were beliefs that one could not become pregnant and negative experiences of contraceptives. The underestimation of pregnancy risk indicates limited fertility awareness, thus our recommendation would be to strengthen the sexual and reproductive knowledge among this group.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsAdolescentAdultContraceptionFemaleFertilityHumansPregnancySwedenContraceptive AgentsabortioncontraceptioncounselingCovid-19family planning

Identifiers

PMID37493190
PMCPMC10577618
OpenAlexW4385264370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.