ArticleJournal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association2024
Family planning behavior before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of the Turkish German Gynecological Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Temporal Trends and Machine Learning-Based Risk Prediction of Female Infertility: A Cross-Cohort Analysis Using NHANES Data (2015-2023).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Contraception use and follow-up visit data from before and in two periods during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were compared to investigate change in behavior. Material and Methods: A retrospective study of women aged 18-49 years from New York City during three one-year time periods: pre-COVID-19 pandemic [(COV-PRE); n=4,261], early COVID-19 pandemic when the COVID-19 vaccine was not available [(COV-VACNO); n=3,365], and later COVID-19 pandemic when the COVID-19 vaccine was available [(COV-VACAV); n=4,170]. Results: There were higher odds of implant use [odds ratio (OR): 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05, 1.93, p=0.02] during COV-VACNO. There were lower odds for any contraception (OR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p<0.001) or intrauterine device (IUD) (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.86, p<0.001) use during COV-VACAV. No differences occurred for bilateral tubal ligation, pill, patch, injection, medical elective abortion, or surgical elective abortion. There was a greater percentage of follow-up visits for any contraception (p=0.02) and IUD (p=0.02) use during COV-VACNO and COV-VACAV than COV-PRE. Conclusion: When COVID-19 vaccines were unavailable, there were higher odds for use of implants. Once COVID-19 vaccines were available, there were lower odds for any contraception and IUD use. These findings highlight changes in behavior in terms of contraceptive concerns and preferences during a public health crisis that should be planned for by healthcare providers.
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.