↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Agreement between patient-reported and provider-reported choice of contraceptive method among family planning patients in New York City: implications for public health

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Women's Health, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Agreement between patient-reported and provider-reported choice of contraceptive method among family planning patients in New York City: implications for public health
Published in
International Journal of Women's Health, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijwh.s49479
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samantha Garbers, Alicia Ventura, Meserve, Chiasson

Abstract

National data on choice of contraceptive method and subsequent use are critical for monitoring progress toward meeting public health goals in reducing unintended pregnancy in the US. Yet few studies have focused on the reliability of clinically-reported or patient-reported measures of choice of contraceptive method for the range of available contraceptive methods. Among 1,844 women receiving reproductive health care at two federally funded centers in New York City, choice of contraceptive method at the end of the visit from two data sources was compared, ie, patient self-report, and provider-report as recorded in the clinical-administrative database. Agreement between the two data sources was assessed for the sample. Sociodemographic predictors of agreement were assessed using logistic regression. Agreement between the data sources was also assessed on a method-by-method basis using positive specific agreement. Participants were predominantly Latina (69%), foreign-born (76%), and low-income (99% with incomes <200% federal poverty level). Agreement of patient-reported and provider-reported contraceptive choice was highest for hormonal methods (positive specific agreement 94.0%) and intrauterine devices (89.9%), and lowest for condoms (53.5%). In the logistic regression model, agreement was lower among teens aged 16-19 years compared with women aged 25+ years (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.99). Because teens are more likely to rely on condoms, the logistic regression model was repeated, adjusting for provider report of condom choice; after adjustment, no sociodemographic differences in agreement were observed. National data sources or studies relying on provider-reported method choice to derive estimates of contraceptive prevalence may overestimate choice of condoms. Our findings raise the question of whether condom choice can be accurately assessed by a single open-ended measure of choice of contraceptive method.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 24%
Psychology 5 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 December 2013.
All research outputs
#14,177,097
of 22,721,584 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Women's Health
#425
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,612
of 198,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Women's Health
#18
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,721,584 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 198,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.