↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

School-based interventions for improving contraceptive use in adolescents

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
466 Mendeley
Title
School-based interventions for improving contraceptive use in adolescents
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laureen M Lopez, Alissa Bernholc, Mario Chen, Elizabeth E. Tolley

Abstract

Young women, especially adolescents, often lack access to modern contraception. Reasons vary by geography and regional politics and culture. The projected 2015 birth rate in 'developing' regions was 56 per 1000 compared with 17 per 1000 for 'developed' regions. To identify school-based interventions that improved contraceptive use among adolescents SEARCH METHODS: Until 6 June 2016, we searched for eligible trials in PubMed, CENTRAL, ERIC, Web of Science, POPLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP. We considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assigned individuals or clusters. The majority of participants must have been 19 years old or younger.The educational strategy must have occurred primarily in a middle school or high school. The intervention had to emphasize one or more effective methods of contraception. Our primary outcomes were pregnancy and contraceptive use. We assessed titles and abstracts identified during the searches. One author extracted and entered the data into RevMan; 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). For cluster randomized trials, we used adjusted measures, e.g. OR, risk ratio, or difference in proportions. For continuous outcomes, we used the adjusted mean difference (MD) or other measures from the models. We did not conduct meta-analysis due to varied interventions and outcome measures. The 11 trials included 10 cluster RCTs and an individually randomized trial. The cluster RCTs had sample sizes from 816 to 10,954; the median number of clusters was 24. Most trials were conducted in the USA and UK; one was from Mexico and one from South Africa.We focus here on the trials with moderate quality evidence and an intervention effect. Three addressed preventing pregnancy and HIV/STI through interactive sessions. One trial provided a multifaceted two-year program. Immediately after year one and 12 months after year two, the intervention group was more likely than the standard-curriculum group to report using effective contraception during last sex (reported adjusted ORs 1.62 ± standard error (SE) 0.22) and 1.76 ± SE 0.29), condom use during last sex (reported adjusted ORs 1.91 ± SE 0.27 and 1.68 ± SE 0.25), and less frequent sex without a condom in the past three months (reported ratios of adjusted means 0.50 ± SE 0.31 and 0.63 ± SE 0.23). Another trial compared multifaceted two-year programs on sexual risk reduction and risk avoidance (abstinence-focused) versus usual health education. At 3 months, the risk reduction group was less likely than the usual-education group to report no condom use at last intercourse (reported adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96) and sex without a condom in the last three months (reported adjusted OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.95). At 3 and after 15 months, the risk avoidance group was also less likely than the usual-education group to report no condom use at last intercourse (reported adjusted ORs 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.93; and 0.61, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.85). At the same time points, the risk reduction group had a higher score than the usual-education group for condom knowledge. The third trial provided a peer-led program with eight interactive sessions. At 17 months, the intervention group was less likely than the teacher-led group to report oral contraceptive use during last sex (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.91). This difference may not have been significant if the investigators had adjusted for the clustering. At 5 and 17 months, the peer-led group had a greater mean increase in knowledge of HIV and pregnancy prevention compared with the control group. An additional trial showed an effect on knowledge only. The group with an emergency contraception (EC) session was more likely than the group without the EC unit to know the time limits for using hormonal EC (pill) and the non-hormonal IUD as EC. Since most trials addressed preventing STI/HIV and pregnancy, they emphasized condom use. However, several studies covered a range of contraceptive methods. The overall quality of evidence was low. Main reasons for downgrading the evidence were having limited information on intervention fidelity, analyzing a subsample rather than all those randomized, and having high losses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 466 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 464 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 98 21%
Researcher 66 14%
Student > Bachelor 64 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 6%
Other 84 18%
Unknown 83 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 110 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 95 20%
Social Sciences 54 12%
Psychology 38 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 2%
Other 60 13%
Unknown 100 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,068,389
of 16,277,929 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,767
of 11,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,299
of 264,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#74
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,277,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 264,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.