ArticleO&G open2025
Evaluating E-Visit Utilization and Efficacy for Oral Contraceptive Pills in a Large, Integrated Health Care System.
Article in O&G open, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo describe and compare outcomes, including access to care, timeliness of care, and need for a close follow-up visit, by the following visit modalities: office, telephone, video, and e-visit for women seeking oral contraceptive care.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all Kaiser Permanente Northern California patient-initiated encounters in the department of obstetrics and gynecology with a primary diagnosis related to oral contraceptive care in 2023 among women aged 18-50 years, excluding those who were not pregnant or those seeking nonoral contraceptive methods. Outcomes included the time from care initiation to oral contraceptive order, rates of contraceptive orders and pickups, the time from care initiation to medication pickup, and rates of 7-day in-person clinic follow-up by visit modality. Covariates included age, race and ethnicity, neighborhood socioeconomic status, primary language, and comorbidity burden (Elixhauser Comorbidity Index score). Using multivariable regression, we calculated marginal adjusted estimates by modality.
resultsAmong 23,122 encounters, the median patient age was 28 years; 20.9% of the women were Asian, 8.9% Black, 32.7% Hispanic, 36.2% non-Hispanic White, and 1.4% none of the above. Telemedicine was more frequently chosen than in-office visits, with 49.3% choosing visits by telephone, 9.9% by video, and 13.7% by e-visit; 27.1% chose office visits. After adjusting for patient characteristics, women who chose e-visits, compared with those who chose an office visit, were more likely to be Black, Hispanic, or Asian (vs White), more likely to primarily speak English, and less likely to have comorbid illnesses. E-visits had the highest adjusted rate of contraceptive orders (92.0%, 95% CI, 91.1-93.0%) and the lowest adjusted rate of 7-day in-person follow-up. All telemedicine modalities had higher contraceptive pickup rates compared with office visits (61.6%). However, rates were slightly higher for telephone (76.7%) and video (76.2%) visits than for e-visits (73.2%). E-visits were associated with the timeliest care: Contraceptive orders were placed 11.3 days faster (95% CI, 10.9-11.8), and pickups occurred 9.5 days sooner (95% CI, 7.7-11.3) compared with office visits.
conclusionE-visits for oral contraceptive care may offer a timely and patient-centered method of care delivery with more timely contraceptive orders and pickups and less need for short-term follow-up, compared with other visit modalities. Asynchronous telemedicine presents as an emerging opportunity to increase access to contraceptive care.
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.