Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39432309›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Use of Preferred Source of Contraception Among Users of the Pill, Patch, and Ring in the US.

Anu Manchikanti Gomez, Ariana H Bennett, Alex Schulte, Jennet Arcara, Lisa Stern, Angela D Aina, Jamie Bardwell, Denicia Cadena, Aisha Chaudhri, Laura Davis and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

20 authors.

Anu Manchikanti GomezSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.
Ariana H BennettSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.
Alex SchulteSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.
Jennet ArcaraSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.
Lisa SternCoalition to Expand Contraceptive Access, Washington, DC.
Angela D AinaBlack Mamas Matter Alliance, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jamie BardwellConverge, Ridgeland, Mississippi.
Denicia CadenaIndependent Consultant, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Aisha ChaudhriIllinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, Chicago.
Laura DavisAdvocates for Youth, Washington, DC.
Christine DehlendorfPerson-Centered Reproductive Health Program, Departments of Family and Community Medicine, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, and Epidemiology and Biostatistics; University of California, San Francisco.
Brittni FrederiksenKFF, San Francisco, California.
Elizabeth JonesNational Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Washington, DC.
Megan L KavanaughGuttmacher Institute, New York, New York.
Catherine LabiranIndependent consultant, Brooklyn, New York.
Raegan McDonald-MosleyPower to Decide, Washington, DC.
Ellen PliskaAssociation of State and Territorial Health Officials, Arlington, Virginia.
Whitney S RiceCenter for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ena Suseth ValladaresCalifornia Latinas for Reproductive Justice, Los Angeles.
Cassondra MarshallSexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.

Funding

Computational Social Science Training ProgramT32HD101364 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI Jennifer Ahern, PATRICK T BRADSHAW · 2020 to 2026
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD101364
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Individuals who use contraceptive pills, patches, and rings must frequently interact with the health care system for continued and consistent use. As options for obtaining these methods expand, better understanding contraceptive users' preferences for source of contraception can help facilitate access. Objective: To describe use of preferred source of contraception and to understand associations between prior reproductive health care experiences and preference for traditional in-person sources vs alternative sources. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional nationally representative survey study fielded in the US in 2022 through NORC's population-based AmeriSpeak panel. Eligible panelists were assigned female sex at birth, aged 15 to 44 years, not infecund, and not personally using permanent contraception. Of the screened panelists, 3150 were eligible; 3059 completed the survey (97%). The analysis sample included 595 individuals who currently used a pill, patch, or ring contraceptive. Data were analyzed from January 25, 2023, to August 15, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were use of any preferred source and use of most preferred source when most recently obtaining contraception. Sources included in-person care, telehealth, pharmacist-prescribed, online service, and over the counter. A binary variable captured whether respondents most preferred traditional, in-person contraceptive care vs an alternative approach. Prior reproductive health care experiences included missing a pill, patch, or ring because they couldn't obtain it on-time and receipt of person-centered contraceptive counseling at most recent contraceptive visit. Sociodemographic characteristics and responses are presented as unweighted numbers with weighted prevalences. Results: In this study, 581 of 595 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 95.9%) of the analytic sample identified as female, 256 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 64.4%) were ages 15 to 29 years, and 448 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 73.8%) had most recently obtained their contraception in-person. Only 197 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 35.6%) selected in-person care as their most preferred source. Additionally, 296 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 49.7%) had most recently obtained their method through any preferred source, and 227 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 39.8%) had obtained it through their most preferred source. In adjusted regression analyses, respondents who previously reported being unable to get their method on time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.36-4.87) had higher odds of preferring an alternative source vs traditional in-person care. Those who recently received person-centered contraceptive counseling (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98) had lower odds of preferring an alternative source. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national study of individuals who used the pill, patch, and ring, most preferred alternative sources to obtain their contraception, and only half had most recently used a preferred source. These findings suggest that expansion of alternative contraceptive sources can better meet the needs of contraceptive users and support reproductive autonomy.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorAdolescentAdultContraceptive Devices, FemaleContraceptives, OralCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePatient PreferenceUnited StatesYoung AdultContraceptives, Oral

Identifiers

PMID39432309
PMCPMC11581482

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.