ArticleUrologia2024
A thematic analysis of the perceptions of reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance as a potential family planning method in the United Kingdom.
Article in Urologia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis exploratory study aimed to look into public perceptions of Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance (RISUG) as a family planning method in the United Kingdom (UK). It also aimed to discover if there were any sex differences in perceptions between males and females.
designTwelve semi-structured interviews were conducted, six with males and six with females, all residents of the UK.
methodsThe audio data from the interviews then was transcribed for analysis. An inductive and a semantic thematic analysis was conducted on the data set.
resultsThree main themes were constructed, including: (i) RISUG Hesitancy, (ii) Females perceived benefits of RISUG and (iii) Males perceived concerns regarding RISUG. Hesitancy was related to vaccination hesitancy, females wanted males to have more reproductive autonomy and males placed their concerns through the lens of 'other' males that their may be unintended side effects. Together these three themes represent both perceived risk and overall benefits of the method. However, while randomized control trails have been completed to standard for RISUG, males perceived concerns, suggesting a disconnect between the public's perceptions and professionals understanding of trails.
conclusionRISUG was perceived as a viable option for family planning in the future, however trust of the new contraceptive method will need to be fostered among the public in order to effectively transfer knowledge on the potential side effects and the standard of pre-market testing for these. Effective public health messages can result in better education of people concerning the new contraceptive method, including the risks and benefits. By using perceptions to inform health messages around RISUG, researchers and practitioners can learn from potential users how to best address misinformation or concerns, while at the same time building an evidence base for when new male methods reach the contraceptive market.
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.