ArticleBJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology2025
Preference for Face-to-Face Contraceptive Service Delivery Post-COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo measure the prevalence of, and social positions associated with, preference for solely face-to-face contraceptive service delivery among women and people assigned female at birth in post-COVID-19 pandemic England.
designCross-sectional online study.
settingEngland. SAMPLE: The Reproductive Health Survey for England (RHSE) recruited women and people assigned female at birth aged 16-55 living in England using an online non-probability convenience sampling strategy from September-October 2023. The study population was limited to contraception users who answered the question of interest.
methodsMultivariable logistic regression identified variables independently associated with preference for face-to-face services.
main outcome measuresPreference for face-to-face services, derived from response to the question 'How would you prefer to access contraceptive services?' (face-to-face vs. telephone/video/website/combination/no preference).
resultsThe study population included 28 328 participants: median age was 30 (IQR:24-38), 92.5% (n = 26 193) reported White ethnicity, and 96% (n = 27 296) identified as a woman/girl. Preference for solely face-to-face services services was reported by 24.7% (n = 6992/28 328). In adjusted analysis, preference for face-to-face was associated with younger and older age; not having degree-level qualifications, self-reporting financial hardship, living with a disability, identifying as a woman/girl, and not being in a (cohabiting) relationship. Whilst there was a significant independent association between paid employment and preference for face-to-face services, effect direction was dependent on ethnicity.
conclusionsAlthough a minority of participants reported a preference for solely face-to-face services, they may represent those with the highest unmet need for contraceptive services. Maintaining choice within contraceptive service delivery in an increasingly digitised healthcare landscape is crucial to advance equitable, person-centred reproductive healthcare.
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.