ArticleGates open research2023
Understanding how they
Article in Gates open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- End-user research into understanding perceptions of and reactions to a microarray patch (MAP) for contraception among women in Ghana, Kenya and Uganda.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2024Article
- Understanding the perceptions and reactions to a monthly oral contraceptive capsule with end users and healthcare providers in Bangladesh, Senegal, and Zimbabwe.Frontiers in global women's 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An expanded range of contraceptive methods could reduce unintended pregnancies. User preferences research is important for successful development of products people want to use. This paper describes four approaches to preferences research soliciting user input in different ways: 1) perspectives on contraceptive method characteristics, 2) reactions to products in development, 3) trade-offs between contraceptive method characteristics, and 4) "blue-sky" ideas on novel contraceptive technologies. Methods: We conducted two mixed-method studies: one implemented in Burkina Faso and Uganda combining three of these approaches, and the other implemented in India and Nigeria using two approaches. We share observations on the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and draw on our experience to highlight lessons learned for future user preferences studies. Results: Each approach contributes to product development in different ways, and the usefulness of each methodology depends on the product development stage and corresponding informational needs. Conclusions: Recommendations for future research include combining different methods, angles, and perspectives; using sequential designs whenever possible; tailoring product descriptions to user understanding for optimal feedback; and acknowledging the value and limitations of both quantitative results for modeling demand and idiosyncratic ideas to inspire development of new products.
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.