ArticleBMJ global health2026
Preferences for characteristics of contraceptive methods: a large, multi-country discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMJ global 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNearly half of global pregnancies are unintended. Contraceptive use is preference-sensitive, including concerns about convenience, privacy and side effects (eg, irregular bleeding, weight gain). We conducted a multi-country study examining women's preferences for attributes of current and potential future modern hormonal contraceptives using a discrete choice experiment (DCE).
methodsBetween April and October 2022, we recruited nationally representative samples of women of reproductive age from seven countries (Burkina Faso, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Kenya, Zambia, Pakistan and the USA) using multi-stage random cluster sampling from national census enumeration areas. The DCE comprised six attributes of hormonal contraceptives: format (ie, mode of administration: injection, implant, etc), dosing interval, provider-administration versus self-administration, effect on menstruation, effect on weight and time from discontinuation until return to fertility. Mixed logit models were fitted separately by country to estimate the relative preference weights (β) for each attribute level.
resultsAcross 20 068 participants, format was the strongest driver of preferences. Injectables were most preferred in Kenya (β=0.44, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63), Pakistan (β=0.55, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.81), Ethiopia (β=0.64, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.90) and Zambia (β=0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.58). Oral pills were most preferred in the USA (β=0.78, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.98), Burkina Faso (β=0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.59) and Nigeria (β=0.55, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.70). Intrauterine devices and vaginal rings were less preferred in all countries. Menstrual bleeding changes and dosing interval were secondary drivers, with longer-acting methods modestly preferred and ongoing irregular bleeding modestly non-preferred. Avoiding weight gain was significantly preferred in several countries, most strongly in Pakistan (β=0.56, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.67) and the USA (β=0.42, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.53).
conclusionsIn this large, multi-country study, reproductive-age participants expressed strong, heterogeneous preferences for contraceptive format, and in some settings, avoiding weight gain side effects. These findings can support preference-aligned contraceptive product development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.