ArticleContraception: X2024
From policy to practice: Experiences from the ECHO trial following revisions of the WHO medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (MEC) guidance on DMPA-IM.
Article in Contraception: X, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) medical eligibility criteria (MEC) for contraception category for intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) was changed from MEC category 1 to 2 for women at high risk of HIV acquisition. We assessed the impact of communicating this category change among women in the Evidence for Contraceptive options and HIV Outcomes (ECHO) trial. Study design: ECHO was conducted in eSwatini, Kenya, South Africa and Zambia. Women were randomized (1:1:1) to DMPA-IM, levonorgestrel (LNG) implant or copper intrauterine device (Cu IUD). We compared the hazards of DMPA-IM discontinuation and assessed sexual behavior and DMPA-IM satisfaction before and after MEC category change. Results: In DMPA-IM users there was a decrease in the hazards of discontinuation after the MEC change (hazard ratio 0.37; 95% CI = 0.26-0.52, Conclusions: While counseling on possible theoretical risks associated with contraceptive methods in the MEC is an important medical ethical standard, in this study it did not adversely impact continuation or sexual behavior, while there was some evidence on increase in dissatisfaction. There is however a need to monitor how changes in MEC categories are implemented. Implications: Although we found no evidence in this analysis of an effect of the MEC change on any of the sexual behavioral outcomes among women after the change in category, it is still an important medical ethical standard to counsel on possible theoretical risks associated with contraceptive methods. Given the challenges of translating research findings to guidelines and further to counseling messages, evaluation of clinical guidelines implementation is necessary to understand the effects of implementation and to monitor both intended impacts and unintended consequences.
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.