ReviewPatient preference and adherence2026
Decisional Needs of Young Women (Aged 15-24 Years) in Contraceptive Choice: A Systematic Review.
Review in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the wide range of contraceptive options available to women, young women worldwide are at risk of unintended pregnancy. Teenagers aged 15-19 account for 15% of abortions, while young women aged 20-24 represent 26% of abortion cases. This review aimed to identify the decisional needs of young women aged 15-24 years when considering contraceptive options based on the ODSF framework. Methods: The PRISMA reporting guidelines guided our methodology while we were theoretically directed by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Our review included six databases in English and three databases in Chinese, with no publication date limits applied. Two reviewers independently screened citations and performed quality assessment with MMAT while extracting data. Sixteen studies (10 qualitative, 5 quantitative, and 1 mixed-methods) were included. The study results underwent thematic synthesis. Results: Sixteen studies (10 qualitative, 5 quantitative, and 1 mixed-methods) were included. Six decisional needs were identified: decisional conflict, inadequate knowledge, unrealistic expectations, unclear values, inadequate support and resources, and personal/clinical needs. Inadequate knowledge and inadequate support and resources were the most frequently reported needs. In resource-limited settings, cultural stigma, financial barriers, and limited access to contraceptive services further complicated contraceptive decision-making. Conclusion: The review identified six decisional needs among young women considering contraceptive options. The findings support the applicability and validity of the Ottawa Decision-Support Framework (ODSF) in the context of young women's contraceptive decision-making, representing an important theoretical contribution of this review. Healthcare providers and policymakers should improve access to reliable contraceptive information, provide patient-centered and culturally sensitive counseling, and develop tailored decision-support tools. However, the restriction to English- and Chinese-language literature may limit the generalizability of the findings across diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.
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.