ArticleContraception2025
Patient and obstetrician-gynecologist perspectives on considering long-acting reversible contraception for postpartum patients who desire permanent contraception.
Article in Contraception, 2025. 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.
- Desire for Sterilization Reversal in Delaware, US: The Roles of LARC Use, Personal Abortion Acceptability, and Economic Disadvantage.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Patient Perspectives on Clinician Support When Pursuing Permanent Contraception in the United States.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): We sought to understand patients' and obstetrician-gynecologists' priorities in seeking or recommending long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (LARC; intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) versus permanent contraception in the postpartum period when permanent contraception was the patient's initial contraceptive preference. STUDY
designWe interviewed 81 postpartum patients who desired permanent contraception and their delivering obstetrician-gynecologist (n = 67) from four US institutions to explore patient and obstetrician-gynecologist (OBGYN) perspectives navigating permanent contraception counseling and decision-making. We used thematic content analysis to analyze interview transcripts using NVivo 12 Pro software.
resultsOur analysis revealed a mismatch between patient and OBGYN priorities when considering permanent contraception versus LARC. Many OBGYNs in our study described a preference for LARC methods over permanent contraception and often prioritized factors such as reversibility and menstrual suppression. However, many patients sought permanent contraception for reasons that were not adequately addressed by LARC methods such as method permanence, desire to avoid menstrual suppression, cancer prevention, prior negative experiences with LARC, and a preference to avoid a foreign body. CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that priorities in selecting a preferred contraceptive method may sometimes not be aligned between patients and clinicians and that LARC methods may not always be an acceptable alternative for patients who desire permanent contraception. The findings from this study highlight the importance of eliciting and centering a patient's goals and desires for pursuing permanent contraception during contraceptive counseling. Clinicians should be aware of the various perspectives and values patients have on these methods and include them in patient-centered share decision-making. IMPLICATIONS: Our study revealed a large discrepancy between patient and obstetrician-gynecologist priorities in seeking or recommending permanent contraception. Clinicians must avoid making assumptions about a patient's priorities for a contraceptive choice to engage in truly patient-driven contraceptive counseling.
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.