Cited by 11Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMale Reproductive Health StudiesGlobal Maternal and Child Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interventions for increasing uptake of copper intrauterine devices: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Copper intrauterine devices (copper-IUDs) are relatively safer, more effective and inexpensive compared with hormonal methods and are the most widely used reversible contraception in the world, but are underused in developed countries. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials and controlled before-and-after studies to determine the effectiveness of interventions for improving uptake of copper-IUDs.Study design We searched electronic databases for eligible trials. RevMan 5.1 was used to calculate Peto odd ratios with 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes.Results Nine studies representing 7960 women met our inclusion criteria, including seven randomized controlled trials and two controlled before-and-after studies. Meta-analysis from three studies showed contraceptive provision by community workers doubled uptake of IUD, and studies on antenatal contraceptive counselling showed similar increases. One study reported major increases in IUD uptake with postnatal couple contraceptive counselling; a study on postnatal home visits and two studies on postabortion contraceptive counselling did not reach statistical significance.Conclusions Community-based interventions and antenatal contraceptive counselling improved uptake of copper-IUD in studies mainly conducted in developing counties. Further research is needed on postabortion contraceptive counselling as well as longer-term effectiveness of interventions to improve use of copper-IUD.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.05.015

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arrowsmith, M. E., Aicken, C. R. H., Majeed, A., & Saxena, S.
Affiliations
Charing Cross Hospital (GB)
Venue
Contraception
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-12
Volume
86
Issue
6
Pages
600-605
ISSN
0010-7824 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170627954
Cited by
11
References
29
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3
FWCI
0.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Contraception (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care - Greater Manchester
  • National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Male Reproductive Health Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Global Maternal and Child Health
Keywords
copper intrauterine device, contraceptive uptake, community-based intervention, postnatal home visits, reversible contraception, family planning services
MeSH terms
Contraception Behavior, Developing Countries, Family Characteristics, Family Planning Services, Female, Humans, Intrauterine Devices, Copper, Male, Patient Education as Topic, Postnatal Care, Perinatal Care, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review