ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Sources of reproductive health information and their associations with self-reported contraceptive familiarity and education needs among female college students: a cross-sectional study in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Female college students (FCSs) obtain reproductive health information from multiple sources. Although the Internet has become a major channel for health information seeking, the relationship between information source, contraceptive familiarity, and education needs remains unclear. This study examined primary information sources and their associations with self-reported contraceptive familiarity and education needs in a multi-province sample. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among FCSs from 24 universities across 12 provincial-level regions in China from January 2025 to May 2026. The primary exposure was the main information source, categorized as school education, Internet, popular science books, family education, peers/friends, and radio/television. Outcomes included higher contraceptive familiarity, need for education, perceived necessity of school-based courses, and desired topics. Multivariable logistic regression with clustered robust standard errors was used, with school education as the reference. Results: The Internet was the most common source (27.29%), followed by school education (21.47%) and popular science books (18.08%). School education had the highest proportions of higher contraceptive familiarity (69.71%), education need (56.67%), and course necessity (79.71%). Compared with school education, family education (aOR = 0.744, 95% CI: 0.621-0.892), peers/friends (aOR = 0.734, 95% CI: 0.608-0.885), and radio/television (aOR = 0.733, 95% CI: 0.582-0.922) were associated with lower odds of higher familiarity. The Internet (aOR = 0.951, 95% CI: 0.811-1.114) and popular science books (aOR = 1.042, 95% CI: 0.875-1.240) did not differ significantly from school education. However, effect sizes were modest (Cramer's Conclusion: In this multi-province sample, the Internet was the leading information source, but school education was associated with the most favorable profile of contraceptive familiarity and education demand. Given the modest effect sizes and cross-sectional design, these findings should be interpreted as associations requiring further investigation rather than as evidence for strong causal effects. Universities should strengthen structured curricula, integrate reliable digital resources, and support students relying on informal sources. Due to the cross-sectional design, causal inferences cannot be drawn.
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.