Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35526598›Full record

SynthesisContraception2022

Health workers' values and preferences regarding contraceptive methods globally: A systematic review.

Komal S Soin, Ping Teresa Yeh, Mary E Gaffield, Christina Ge, Caitlin E Kennedy

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Self-care interventions and universal health coverage.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

5 authors.

Komal S SoinDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States; Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Hawaii, John A. Burns School of Medicine, Aiea, HI, United States. Electronic address: ksoin@hawaii.edu.
Ping Teresa YehDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Mary E GaffieldContraception and Fertility Care Unit, Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Christina GeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anne Arundel Medical Center, Annapolis, MD, United States.
Caitlin E KennedyDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to systematically review the literature on health workers' values and preferences related to contraceptive methods. STUDY

designAs part of a larger review, we searched ten electronic databases for published articles from January 1, 2005 through July 27, 2020. We included studies that reported qualitative or quantitative data from the perspective of health workers providing family planning services globally.

resultsForty-one studies met our inclusion criteria. These studies included 12,643 health workers and were conducted in 27 countries. Health worker values and preferences for contraceptive methods were affected by factors related to contraceptive method characteristics (e.g., bleeding pattern and convenience), the contraceptive user (e.g., medical history, parity), and the health worker themselves (e.g., training, environment). Differences were also noted between various professions/specialties (e.g., comfort level with contraceptive methods, depth of experience). While contraceptive counseling and provision were influenced by health worker values and preferences, they were also affected by health worker misconceptions and biases.

conclusionHealth worker values and preferences for contraception are affected by the client's history, medical eligibility, and the health worker context. Provision of contraception that is affected by harmful bias towards certain populations or about certain methods can negatively affect patient-centered care. Future work should address knowledge gaps and health worker biases by improving and standardizing education and training globally, to ensure high-quality, rights-based, and patient-centered contraceptive services.

Indexed as

ContraceptionFamily Planning ServicesContraceptive AgentsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansPatient-Centered CarePregnancyContraceptive AgentsContraceptionHealth Care providersHealth workersPreferencesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35526598
PMCPMC9233149

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.