Cochrane · systematic review · CD004317
Strategies to improve adherence and continuation of shorter‐term hormonal methods of contraception
Mack, N, Crawford, TJ, Guise, JM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
Fertility RegulationAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 30%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 30%Low 4 · 40%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Intensive counseling compared to usual family planning care for improving adherence and continuation of shorter‐term hormonal methods of contraception
Population: Women of reproductive age seeking to avoid pregnancy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuation of hormonal contraceptive method Intensive counseling vs usual family planning care | OR 1.28 [1.07, 1.54] | 6 studies · 2624 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Rate of discontinuation due to menstrual disturbances Intensive counseling vs usual family planning care | OR 0.2 [0.11, 0.37] | 1 study · 350 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Rate of discontinuation due to all other adverse events Intensive counseling vs usual family planning care | OR 0.73 [0.36, 1.47] | 1 study · 350 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Adherence to method use Intensive counseling vs usual family planning care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Pregnancy Intensive counseling vs usual family planning care | OR 1.24 [0.98, 1.57] | 3 studies · 1985 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Reminders (+/‐ educational information) compared to usual family planning care for improving adherence and continuation of shorter‐term hormonal methods of contraception
Population: Women of reproductive age seeking to avoid pregnancy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Continuation of hormonal contraceptive method Reminders (+/‐ educational information) vs usual family planning care | OR 1.33 [1.03, 1.73] | 2 studies · 933 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Rates of discontinuation due to adverse events Reminders (+/‐ educational information) vs usual family planning care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adherence to method use as indicated by missed pills per cycle Reminders (+/‐ educational information) vs usual family planning care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 73 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Adherence to method use as indicated by on‐time injections overall Reminders (+/‐ educational information) vs usual family planning care | OR 0.84 [0.54, 1.29] | 2 studies · 350 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Pregnancy Reminders (+/‐ educational information) vs usual family planning care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |