↓ Skip to main content

Theory-based interventions for contraception

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
343 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Theory-based interventions for contraception
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007249.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Thomas W Grey, Mario Chen, Elizabeth E. Tolley, Laurie L Stockton

Abstract

The explicit use of theory in research helps expand the knowledge base. Theories and models have been used extensively in HIV-prevention research and in interventions for preventing sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The health behavior field uses many theories or models of change. However, many educational interventions addressing contraception have no explicit theoretical base. To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that tested a theoretical approach to inform contraceptive choice and encourage or improve contraceptive use. To 1 November 2016, we searched for trials that tested a theory-based intervention for improving contraceptive use in PubMed, CENTRAL, POPLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. For the initial review, we wrote to investigators to find other trials. Included trials tested a theory-based intervention for improving contraceptive use. Interventions addressed the use of one or more methods for contraception. The reports provided evidence that the intervention was based on a specific theory or model. The primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraceptive choice or use. We assessed titles and abstracts identified during the searches. One author extracted and entered the data into Review Manager; a second author verified accuracy. We examined studies for methodological quality.For unadjusted dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cluster randomized trials used various methods of accounting for the clustering, such as multilevel modeling. Most reports did not provide information to calculate the effective sample size. Therefore, we presented the results as reported by the investigators. We did not conduct meta-analysis due to varied interventions and outcome measures. We included 10 new trials for a total of 25. Five were conducted outside the USA. Fifteen randomly assigned individuals and 10 randomized clusters. This section focuses on nine trials with high or moderate quality evidence and an intervention effect. Five based on social cognitive theory addressed preventing adolescent pregnancy and were one to two years long. The comparison was usual care or education. Adolescent mothers with a home-based curriculum had fewer second births in two years (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.00). Twelve months after a school-based curriculum, the intervention group was more likely to report using an effective contraceptive method (adjusted OR 1.76 ± standard error (SE) 0.29) and using condoms during last intercourse (adjusted OR 1.68 ± SE 0.25). In alternative schools, after five months the intervention group reported more condom use during last intercourse (reported adjusted OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.56). After a school-based risk-reduction program, at three months the intervention group was less likely to report no condom use at last intercourse (adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96). The risk avoidance group (abstinence-focused) was less likely to do so at 15 months (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85). At 24 months after a case management and peer-leadership program, the intervention group reported more consistent use of hormonal contraceptives (adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.58), condoms (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.94), and dual methods (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.85).Four of the nine trials used motivational interviewing (MI). In three studies, the comparison group received handouts. The MI group more often reported effective contraception use at nine months (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.83). In two studies, the MI group was less likely to report using ineffective contraception at three months (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.77) and four months (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.98), respectively. In the fourth trial, the MI group was more likely than a group with non-standard counseling to initiate long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) by one month (OR 3.99, 95% CI 1.36 to 11.68) and to report using LARC at three months (OR 3.38, 95% CI 1.06 to 10.71). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. Trials based on social cognitive theory focused on adolescents and provided multiple sessions. Those using motivational interviewing had a wider age range but specific populations. Sites with low resources need effective interventions adapted for their settings and their typical clients. Reports could be clearer about how the theory was used to design and implement the intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 343 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 333 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 86 25%
Researcher 63 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 15%
Unspecified 45 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 8%
Other 71 21%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 31%
Unspecified 59 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 54 16%
Social Sciences 49 14%
Psychology 44 13%
Other 29 8%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 March 2017.
All research outputs
#7,860,166
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,243
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,663
of 367,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#127
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 367,915 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.