Edith Fox1, Arlene Reyna2, Nikita M Malcolm3, Rachel B Rosmarin3, Lauren B Zapata4, Brittni N Frederiksen5, Susan B Moskosky5, Christine Dehlendorf6. 1. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. Electronic address: edith.fox@ucsf.edu. 2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California. 3. Atlas Research, Washington, District of Columbia. 4. Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Office of Population Affairs, HHS, Washington, District of Columbia. 6. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California,San Francisco, California; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Providers can help clients achieve their personal reproductive goals by providing high-quality, client-centered contraceptive counseling. Given the individualized nature of contraceptive decision making, provider attention to clients' preferences for counseling interactions can enhance client centeredness. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on what preferences clients have for the contraceptive counseling they receive. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review is part of an update to a prior review series to inform contraceptive counseling in clinical settings. Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases were searched for studies related to client preferences for contraceptive counseling published in the U.S. or similar settings from March 2011 through November 2016. Because studies on client preferences were not included in the prior review series, a limited search was conducted for earlier research published from October 1992 through February 2011. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In total, 26 articles met inclusion criteria, including 17 from the search of literature published March 2011 or later and nine from the search of literature from October 1992 through February 2011. Nineteen articles included results about client preferences for information received during counseling, 13 articles included results about preferences for the decision-making process, 13 articles included results about preferences for the relationship between providers and clients, and 11 articles included results about preferences for the context in which contraceptive counseling is delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the mostly small, qualitative studies included in this review describes preferences for the contraceptive counseling interaction. Provider attention to these preferences may improve the quality of family planning care; future research is needed to explore interventions designed to meet preferences. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
CONTEXT: Providers can help clients achieve their personal reproductive goals by providing high-quality, client-centered contraceptive counseling. Given the individualized nature of contraceptive decision making, provider attention to clients' preferences for counseling interactions can enhance client centeredness. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the evidence on what preferences clients have for the contraceptive counseling they receive. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review is part of an update to a prior review series to inform contraceptive counseling in clinical settings. Sixteen electronic bibliographic databases were searched for studies related to client preferences for contraceptive counseling published in the U.S. or similar settings from March 2011 through November 2016. Because studies on client preferences were not included in the prior review series, a limited search was conducted for earlier research published from October 1992 through February 2011. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: In total, 26 articles met inclusion criteria, including 17 from the search of literature published March 2011 or later and nine from the search of literature from October 1992 through February 2011. Nineteen articles included results about client preferences for information received during counseling, 13 articles included results about preferences for the decision-making process, 13 articles included results about preferences for the relationship between providers and clients, and 11 articles included results about preferences for the context in which contraceptive counseling is delivered. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from the mostly small, qualitative studies included in this review describes preferences for the contraceptive counseling interaction. Provider attention to these preferences may improve the quality of family planning care; future research is needed to explore interventions designed to meet preferences. THEME INFORMATION: This article is part of a theme issue entitled Updating the Systematic Reviews Used to Develop the U.S. Recommendations for Providing Quality Family Planning Services, which is sponsored by the Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Authors: Carol S Weisman; Deidre Spicer Maccannon; Jillian T Henderson; Emily Shortridge; Camille L Orso Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2002 Mar-Apr
Authors: Eleanor B Schwarz; Elizabeth J Burch; Sara M Parisi; Kathleen P Tebb; Daniel Grossman; Ateev Mehrotra; Ralph Gonzales Journal: Contraception Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Christine Dehlendorf; Jillian T Henderson; Eric Vittinghoff; Kevin Grumbach; Kira Levy; Julie Schmittdiel; Jennifer Lee; Dean Schillinger; Jody Steinauer Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lauren B Zapata; Karen Pazol; Christine Dehlendorf; Kathryn M Curtis; Nikita M Malcolm; Rachel B Rosmarin; Brittni N Frederiksen Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Liane M Ventura; Kate E Beatty; Amal J Khoury; Michael G Smith; Oluwatosin Ariyo; Deborah L Slawson; Amy J Weber Journal: Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle) Date: 2021-12-15
Authors: Helena Kilander; Maja Weinryb; Malin Vikström; Kerstin Petersson; Elin C Larsson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 2.908