Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40726097›Full record

ArticleWomen's health (London, England)

"

Stephanie Chung, Katherine Tumlinson, Aunchalee Palmquist, Leigh Senderowicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Stephanie ChungDepartment of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2383-0512
Katherine TumlinsonCarolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Aunchalee PalmquistDuke Global Health Institute. Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0848-6952
Leigh SenderowiczDepartment of Gender and Women's Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6713-1473

Funding

Training Program in Reproductive, Perinatal, and Pediatric EpidemiologyT32HD052468 · NICHD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Julie L Daniels · 2008 to 2026
$3.8M
Contraceptive Autonomy: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Developing a Novel Family Planning MeasureK01HD113818 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Leigh Gabrielle Senderowicz · 2024 to 2026
$411k
NICHD NIH HHS K01 HD113818NICHD NIH HHS T32 HD052468
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople have contraceptive autonomy when they can obtain their preferred contraceptive method. Non-preferred method use may result from inappropriate medical contraindications, which occur when providers apply incorrect contraceptive eligibility criteria during consultations. Non-preferred method use and inappropriate medical contraindications are understudied in the Global South, partially due to measurement challenges.

objectivesThis study provides the first evidence in over two decades that inappropriate medical contraindications are still a barrier to preferred method use in the Global South and offer a new conceptual frame for a neglected medical barrier to contraceptive use.

designWe collected qualitative data from 49 in-depth interviews and 17 focus group discussions (n = 146) with women of reproductive age (15-49) in an anonymized African country.

methodsWe deductively identified instances of preferred method denial for medical reasons, then analyzed these episodes to determine whether the medical reasons for denial were evidence-based.

resultsWe found that many women who reported preferred method denial described being offered medical reasons discordant with evidence-based guidelines, often resulting in what we determined to be contraceptive coercion. Specifically, we identified that (1) women experienced bi-directional contraceptive coercion with medical rationales, (2) women trusted providers' medical authority and felt unable to ask for more information, and finally, (3) women's personal reasons for their contraceptive preferences were rendered illegitimate by providers' use of biomedical language and (often incorrect) medical rationales. Consequentially, some women self-reported information indicating a legitimate contraindication to the non-preferred method their provider encouraged them to use.

conclusionInappropriate medical contraindications are an under-studied facility-level barrier to contraceptive access that can result in contraceptive coercion, negative health outcomes, discontinuation of wanted methods, and loss of reproductive autonomy. Addressing inappropriate medical contraindications will require solutions that negotiate both structural factors and individual provider behavior to improve the quality of contraceptive service provision.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorAdolescentAdultCoercionContraindications, DrugFemaleFocus GroupsHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceQualitative ResearchYoung Adultbarriers to contraceptive accesscontraceptionfamily planninginappropriate medical contraindications

Identifiers

PMID40726097
PMCPMC12314352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.