↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Education for contraceptive use by women after childbirth

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
344 Mendeley
Title
Education for contraceptive use by women after childbirth
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001863.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Thomas W Grey, Janet E Hiller, Mario Chen

Abstract

Contraceptive education is generally a standard component of postpartum care, although the effectiveness is seldom examined. The assumptions that form the basis of such programs include postpartum women being motivated to use contraception and that they will not return to a health provider for family planning advice. Women may wish to discuss contraception both prenatally and after hospital discharge. Nonetheless, two-thirds of postpartum women have unmet needs for contraception. In the USA, many adolescents have repeat pregnancies within a year of giving birth. Assess the effectiveness of educational interventions for postpartum women on contraceptive use SEARCH METHODS: We searched for trials through June 2015 in PubMed, CENTRAL, CINAHL, POPLINE, and Web of Science. For current trials, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. Previous searches also included EMBASE and PsycInfo. We also examined reference lists of relevant articles. For earlier versions, we contacted investigators to locate additional reports. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined postpartum education about contraceptive use, whether delivered to individuals or to groups of women. Studies that randomized clusters rather than individuals were eligible if the investigators accounted for the clustering in the analysis. The intervention must have started within one month after delivery. We assessed titles and abstracts identified during the literature searches. The data were abstracted and entered into Review Manager. Studies were examined for methodological quality. For dichotomous outcomes, the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Where data were sFor continuous variables, we computed the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Due to varied interventions and outcome measures, we did not conduct meta-analysis. Twelve trials met our eligibility criteria, included the three added in this update. The studies included a total of 4145 women. Eight trials were conducted in the USA; the others were from Australia, Nepal, Pakistan, and Syria. Four studies provided one session before hospital discharge; three had structured counseling of varying intensity and one involved informal counseling. Of eight interventions with than one contact, five focused on adolescents. Three of the five involved home visiting, one provided multiple clinic services, and one had in-person contact and phone follow-up. Of the remaining three for women of varying ages, two involved home visits and one provided phone follow-up.Our sensitivity analysis included six trials with evidence of moderate or high quality. In a study with adolescents, the group with home-based mentoring had fewer second births within two years compared to the control group (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.00). The other five interventions had no effect. Of trials with lower quality evidence, two showed some effectiveness. In Nepal, women with an educational session immediately postpartum were more likely to use contraception at six months than those with a later or no session (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.50). In an Australian study, teenagers in a structured home-visiting program were more likely to have effective contraception use at six months than those with standard home visits (OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.35 to 7.79). We focused our results summary on trials with moderate or high quality evidence. Overall, the overall quality of evidence in this review was moderate to low and the evidence of effectiveness was mostly low quality. The interventions could be improved by strengthening the program design and implementation. Some studies did not report program training for providers, adherence to the intervention protocol, or measurement of participants' knowledge and skills. Many trials did not have an objective outcome measure, i.e., pregnancy test or structured questionnaire for contraceptive use. Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to obtain meaningful results. Still, given the associated costs and logistics, some programs would not be feasible in many settings.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 344 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 343 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 76 22%
Researcher 37 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Student > Postgraduate 23 7%
Other 50 15%
Unknown 106 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 15%
Social Sciences 33 10%
Psychology 18 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 2%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 119 35%

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 01 January 2018.
All research outputs
#5,608,529
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,107
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,711
of 271,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#118
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 271,958 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.