| Title |
Cross-sectional study of contraceptive use among Chinese women of reproductive age: results based on a mobile application (APP)-derived data
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00404-018-4687-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lele Mao, Wenpei Bai, Yuliang Huo, Yingfang Zhou, Chen Yao, Sisi Xi, Xing Chen, Yu Sun |
| Abstract |
To evaluate the contraceptive status among Chinese women of reproductive age and factors associated with contraceptive methods. A cross-sectional study from November 2015 to January 2016 was conducted. We used APP to collect demographics and contraceptive use information of women aged 14-44 years in China. A total of 23,669 women completed the study. After data cleaning, 19,768 (83.5%) women were included in the final analysis. The prevalence of contraceptive use was 78.9%; while 21.05% of women did not use any method, condoms (40.10%), rhythm, or withdrawal (31.03%) were the most commonly used methods. When contraceptive methods were divided into four categories-long-acting contraceptives (LAC), short-acting contraceptive (SAC), Others, and "No use"-the prevalence was 6.1% (601/19,678), 40.8% (8022/19,678), 35.1% (6912/19,678), and 21.1% (4143/19,678), respectively. Women with a high level of education, being unmarried, and sexually active women tended to choose SAC; married women were associated with LAC usage. Women with irregular menstrual cycle used a high proportion of emergency contraception. The prevalence of contraceptive use was 78.9%, with condom use being most prominent. Young women of reproductive age have low awareness of contraception. Relevant departments should take necessary measures to improve this situation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Mexico | 1 | 20% |
| Philippines | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 20 | 48% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 10% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 21 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,389,583
of 25,144,989 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#1,155
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,958
of 336,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics
#15
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,144,989 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.