Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39037774›Full record

ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2024

Contraceptive Use Measured in a National Population-Based Approach: Cross-Sectional Study of Administrative Versus Survey Data.

Juliette Congy, Delphine Rahib, Céline Leroy, Jean Bouyer, Elise de La Rochebrochard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Juliette CongySexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Unit, Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques, Aubervilliers, France.ORCID 0000-0002-9197-3427
Delphine RahibSexual Health Unit, Santé Publique France, Saint-Maurice, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9187-0690
Céline LeroyAgence Régionale de Santé, Caen, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9080-8262
Jean BouyerSexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Unit, Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques, Aubervilliers, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4861-0783
Elise de La RochebrochardSexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Unit, Institut National d'Etudes Démographiques, Aubervilliers, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1639-7335

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrescribed contraception is used worldwide by over 400 million women of reproductive age. Monitoring contraceptive use is a major public health issue that usually relies on population-based surveys. However, these surveys are conducted on average every 6 years and do not allow close follow-up of contraceptive use. Moreover, their sample size is often too limited for the study of specific population subgroups such as people with low income. Health administrative data could be an innovative and less costly source to study contraceptive use.

objectiveWe aimed to explore the potential of health administrative data to study prescribed contraceptive use and compare these data with observations based on survey data.

methodsWe selected all women aged 15-49 years, covered by French health insurance and living in France, in the health administrative database, which covers 98% of the resident population (n=14,788,124), and in the last French population-based representative survey, the Health Barometer Survey, conducted in 2016 (n=4285). In health administrative data, contraceptive use was recorded with detailed information on the product delivered, whereas in the survey, it was self-declared by the women. In both sources, the prevalence of contraceptive use was estimated globally for all prescribed contraceptives and by type of contraceptive: oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and implants. Prevalences were analyzed by age.

resultsThere were more low-income women in health administrative data than in the population-based survey (1,576,066/14,770,256, 11% vs 188/4285, 7%, respectively; P<.001). In health administrative data, 47.6% (7034,710/14,770,256; 95% CI 47.6%-47.7%) of women aged 15-49 years used a prescribed contraceptive versus 50.5% (2297/4285; 95% CI 49.1%-52.0%) in the population-based survey. Considering prevalences by the type of contraceptive in health administrative data versus survey data, they were 26.9% (95% CI 26.9%-26.9%) versus 27.7% (95% CI 26.4%-29.0%) for oral contraceptives, 17.7% (95% CI 17.7%-17.8%) versus 19.6% (95% CI 18.5%-20.8%) for IUDs, and 3% (95% CI 3.0%-3.0%) versus 3.2% (95% CI 2.7%-3.7%) for implants. In both sources, the same overall tendency in prevalence was observed for these 3 contraceptives. Implants remained little used at all ages, oral contraceptives were highly used among young women, whereas IUD use was low among young women.

conclusionsCompared with survey data, health administrative data exhibited the same overall tendencies for oral contraceptives, IUDs, and implants. One of the main strengths of health administrative data is the high quality of information on contraceptive use and the large number of observations, allowing studies of subgroups of population. Health administrative data therefore appear as a promising new source to monitor contraception in a population-based approach. They could open new perspectives for research and be a valuable new asset to guide public policies on reproductive and sexual health.

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorAdolescentAdultContraceptionCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFranceHumansMiddle AgedYoung Adultadministrative databirth controlcontraceptioncontraceptivecontraceptive prevalencehealth dataimplantintrauterine deviceIUDmonitoringoral contraceptivespopulation-based surveyprevalencepublic health issue

Identifiers

PMID39037774
PMCPMC11301111

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.