Background
Methods
Analysis
Results
Search results
Reference | Questionnaire/interview included | DA included/available | DA format | DA design methodology | Source | Setting | Population | Study design | Sampling | Primary outcome | Other outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adinma 1998 [9] | ● | N/A | Literature search | Teaching hospital (Nigeria) | Pregnant women attending antenatal clinic | Questionnaire-based, face-to-face interview | Consecutive patients | Factors determining choice of contraception | Reasons for choice, correlation of choice with sociodemographic variables | ||
Ameh 2007 [10] | ● | N/A | Literature search | Teaching hospital (Nigeria) | New clients attending a reproductive center | Questionnaire | Consecutive patients | Choice of contraceptive | Reasons for choice, contraception knowledge, source of contraception knowledge | ||
Amin 2012 [11] | ● | N/A | Literature search | Family planning clinic (Pakistan) | Women seeking contraceptive services | Questionnaire | Convenience | Factors determining choice of contraceptive | Reasons for choice, correlation of choice with sociodemographic variables | ||
BCS + [12] | ● | Cards | † | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Bedsider - method explorer [13] | ● | Online method explorer | † | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Bedsider - side by side [14] | ● | Online comparison grid | † | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Bedsider - build your own [15] | ● | Online side-by-side comparator | † | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Chewning 1999 [16] | ● | Computerized method explorer used before exam consultation | † | Literature search | Family planning clinics (Chicago, IL, USA; Madison, WI, USA) | Females ≤20 years interested in contraceptive | Pseudo-randomized, controlled trial | Consecutive patients | Contraceptive knowledge | Confidence in contraceptive efficacy, contraceptive adoption after stated intent to use, continued use of contraception, pregnancy | |
● | Flipchart used during clinical encounter | † | Literature search | Various (Nicaragua, Mexico, Indonesia, USA) | Various † | Quazi-experimental and randomized controlled trials | Various † | Person-provider interaction | Choice of contraceptive method, contraceptive use rates, provider acceptability of DA, person satisfaction with counseling | ||
Choosing Wisely [23] | ● | Online ideal method predictor | † | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Costa 2011 [24] | ● | ● | Leaflet used before and during appointment | † | Literature search | Multiple centers (Portugal) | Women ≥16 visiting gynecologist to start or restart combined hormonal contraceptive | Questionnaires before and after leaflet use and counseling | Consecutive patients | Choice of contraceptive | Reasons for choice |
Egarter 2012 [25] | ● | ● | Leaflet used during counseling | † | Literature search | European medical centers | Women 15-40 years starting or restarting hormonal contraception | Questionnaires before and after leaflet use | Consecutive patients | Difference between intended and selected method | Reasons for choice |
Fait 2011 [26] | ● | ● | Leaflet used during counseling | † | Literature search | Multiple centers (Czech Republic) | Women 15-40 years who came to discuss combined hormonal contraception | Questionnaires before and after leaflet use | Consecutive patients | Difference between intended and selected method | Predictors of choice |
Garbers 2012 [27] | ● | ● | Online ideal method predictor used before consultation | † | Literature search | Low-income family planning clinics (New York City, US) | Women ≥16 attending family planning visit | Randomized controlled trial | Consecutive patients | Effectiveness of contraceptive method chosen | |
Gold 1998 [28] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Multiple clinics (USA) | Women aged 13-21 years attending clinics | Questionnaire | Convenience | Acceptability of contraceptive methods | Menstrual, sexual and gynecologic history | |
Goldstuck 1989 [29] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Hospital-based and free-standing family planning clinics | Women who elected to use IUD for the first time | Questionnaire | Consecutive patients | Reason for choosing method | Reason for choice | |
Johnson 2003 [30] | ● | Written educational material used during hospitalization | NR | Literature search | Post-partum hospital ward (Oregon, USA) | Women hospitalized post-partum | Quazi-experimental | Consecutive patients | Receipt of DA | Impact of DA on choice of contraception | |
Leon 2005 [31] | ● | ● | Flowchart with cards or pamphlets used during encounter | † | Literature search | Multiple health centers (Guatemala) | No direct patient participation studied (provider adoption was outcome) | Nonequivalent control group quasi-experimental trial | N/A | Adoption of DA and counseling strategy | Impact on quality of care, impact on counseling session length. |
Lete 2007 [32] | ● | ● | Leaflet used at the time of consultation | NR | Literature search | Multiple outpatient clinics and private institutions (Spain) | Women 18-49 who consulted regarding contraception and initiated or re-initiated combined hormonal contraception | Questionnaire after leaflet use | Consecutive patients | Method acceptance | Reasons for choice |
Madden 2012 [33] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | University research clinical site and community partner clinics (St. Louis, Missouri, USA) | Women 15-45 interested in starting a new contraceptive method | Questionnaire | Convenience | Impact of standardized counseling on choice | ||
Mercx 2011 [34] | ● | ● | Leaflet used during encounter | † | Literature search | Hospital or ambulatory gynecological practices | Women 18-40 years consulting for contraception | Questionnaires before and after leaflet use | Convenience | Ability to choose method after counseling | Change of method choice after counseling, choice of method, following gynecologist recommendation |
Method match [35] | ● | Online method explorer | NR | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
My contraception Tool [36] | ● | Online ideal method predictor | † | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
My method [37] | ● | Online ideal method predictor | NR | Web search | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
Proctor 2006 [38] | ● | ● | Written literature or educational video designed to be used separate from clinical encounter; not available for extraction | NR | Literature search | Urban medical center (USA) | Postpartum women | Randomized, prospective trial of three counseling methods | Consecutive patients | Satisfaction with contraceptive counseling | Associations of sociodemographic variables with satisfaction |
Rubin 2010 [39] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Family medicine practices (New York City, USA) | Convenience sample of reproductive-aged women who have heard of the IUD | Semistructured interview | Convenience | Users’ beliefs and attitudes that may act as a barrier to acceptance or use of an IUD | ||
Steiner 2003 [40] | ● | ● | Pregnancy risk tables used outside of context of clinical encounter | † | Literature search | Five shopping malls across U.S. | Women 18-44 years | Randomized trial of three pregnancy risk tables with questionnaires before and after | Convenience | Reasons for choosing method | Knowledge (pre vs. while looking at table) |
Steiner 2006 [41] | ● | ● | Pregnancy risk charts not used in context of actual decision | NR | Literature search | Convenience sample (Kingston, Jamaica and Bangalore, India) | Reproductive-age women aged 18-44 with basic English literacy | Randomized trial of three pregnancy risk charts with questionnaires before and after | Convenience | Knowledge about contraceptive efficacy | Reason for choice, ease of pregnancy risk chart use |
Venkat 2008 [42] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Gynecology outpatient clinics (New York City, USA) | Latina women | Questionnaire | Convenience | Perceptions about contraceptive methods | Whether religiosity and acculturation play a role in contraceptive choice | |
Vogt 2011 [43] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Representative panel (Germany) | Women aged 18-24 | Online survey | Random sampling from representative panel | Ability to identify noncontraceptive benefits and health risks of contraceptive | Self-perceived knowledge of contraceptive effects, interest in contraceptive effects, preferred source of information | |
Wall 1985 [44] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Private family practice and a family practice residency program | Convenience sample of women having some prior experience with contraception | Questionnaire | Convenience | Attributes relevant to choosing a contraceptive method | Predictive value of most relevant attributes on contraceptive choice, satisfaction with current method | |
Weldegerima 2008 [45] | ● | N/A | N/A | Literature search | Community setting (Ethiopia) | Representative sample of reproductive age women | Questionnaire | Random sampling of residents | Awareness of modern contraceptives | Attitudes toward modern contraceptive use, reasons for nonuse of modern contraceptive methods, most commonly preferred modern contraceptive |
Overarching categories
Attribute | Included terms (similar attributes) |
---|---|
Mechanistic
| |
Ease of use | Effort, convenience |
Probability of omission | Mistake-proof, requirement of daily action |
How used | Instructions for use, mechanistic explanation |
Frequency of use | Timing, use pattern (e.g., three out of four weeks) |
Return to fertility | Reversibility, permanence, control over method, childbearing plans |
Effect latency | When method can be started, advanced planning necessary, works immediately |
Foreign body phobia | Comfort with genital touching/genital exam/wearing patch |
Needle phobia | |
Use of hormones | Hormone levels |
Requirement of healthcare provider visit | (for initiation and/or follow-up) |
Post-coital | Works after sex |
Pre-sex preparation | Action required prior to each intercourse |
Method effect
| |
Efficacy | Pregnancy prevention, “perfect use”, “typical use” |
Maximizing efficacy | Factors reducing or maximizing efficacy, action required in case of method failure or imperfect use |
STI prevention | |
Side effects/health risks | Safety, contraindications, drug interactions (e.g., antiretrovirals), latex allergy |
Noncontraceptive benefits | Health benefits |
Menstrual changes | Bleeding, cramping |
Postpartum compatibility | Breastfeeding compatible |
Alarm signs | Reasons to return to clinic, serious side effects |
Social/normative
| |
Partner support | Partner compliance/involvement/acceptability/attitudes |
Prior experience | Prior method use |
Vicarious experience | Peer experience/advice, health professional input, media, peer/family acceptability/attitudes |
Expectations | Perceptions or myths about methods and complications |
Religions/moral considerations | |
Concealability | Discreet, private (from partner or others) |
Reputation | Popularity, artificiality, naturalness |
Requires parental consent | |
Practical
| |
Cost (financial) | Ability to pay, how cost is distributed over time |
Effect on sexual pleasure | Effect on intimacy/spontaneity/libido |
Availability | Where obtained |
Level of sexual activity | How frequently having sex |