Communicating contraceptive effectiveness: A randomized controlled trial to inform a World Health Organization family planning handbook. Pregnancy and STD prevention counseling using an adaptation of motivational interviewing: a randomized controlled trial. Understanding risk: a randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness.
The objective of the study was to compare 3 different approaches for increasing clients' understanding of contraceptive effectiveness.
                We randomized 900 reproductive-age women in India and Jamaica to 1 of 3 charts presenting pregnancy risk.
                The most important reason for choosing a contraceptive was how well it prevents pregnancy (54%) followed by few side effects (17%). At baseline, knowledge about contraceptive effectiveness was poor. About half knew oral contraceptive pills are more effective than condoms (46%) and intrauterine devices are more effective than injectables (50%). All 3 charts improved knowledge significantly (P < .01) for these 2 questions. No chart improved knowledge better than any other (P > .05). The chart ranking contraceptive methods on a continuum was judged slightly easier to understand than the other 2 charts.
                Only with accurate understanding of pregnancy risk can clients make informed choices. Our results have already informed a global handbook for family planning providers to use the chart ranking contraceptive methods on a continuum. Given levels of unintended pregnancy and STDs, an effective counseling intervention is needed to improve women's consistent use of effective prevention methods.
                A sample of 764 women aged 16-44 who were at risk of unintended pregnancy were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in North Carolina in 2003-2004. Intervention participants received pregnancy and STD prevention counseling, adapted from motivational interviewing, both at enrollment and two months later; controls received only a session of general health counseling. Levels of contraceptive use (categorized as high, low or none on the basis of the effectiveness of the method and the consistency of use) and barriers to use were measured at two, eight and 12 months; chi-square tests were used to compare selected outcomes between the groups. Rates of unintended pregnancy and chlamydia infection were assessed over the study period.
                At baseline, 59% of all participants reported a high level of contraceptive use, 19% a low level and 22% nonuse. At two months, the proportions of intervention and control participants who had improved their level of use or maintained a high level (72% and 66%, respectively) were significantly larger than the proportions who had reported a high level of use at baseline (59% and 58%, respectively). No significant differences were found between the groups at 12 months, or between baseline and 12 months for either group. During the study, 10-11% of intervention and control participants became pregnant, 1-2% received a chlamydia diagnosis and 7-9% had another STD diagnosed.
                Repeated counseling sessions may be needed to improve contraceptive decision-making and to reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs. To determine which of three different approaches increased women's understanding of risk of pregnancy associated with different contraceptive methods.
                We randomly assigned 461 reproductive-age women to one of three tables presenting pregnancy risk (Food and Drug Administration table with numbers, World Health Organization table with numbers and categories, or table with categories). We evaluated participant knowledge before and after being shown the assigned table.
                The most important reason for choosing a contraceptive was how well it works (53%), followed by ease of use (13%), and protection against sexually transmitted disease or human immunodeficiency virus (11%). Before looking at the tables, about half the participants knew that hormone shots are more effective than pills (48%) and that pills are more effective than condoms (57%). For these two key comparisons, the category table compared to the Food and Drug Administration table with numbers improved knowledge significantly more (37% versus 20% and 27% versus 14%; both P <.05). Compared with those assigned to the Food and Drug Administration table with numbers, significantly fewer participants assigned to the category table said the table was difficult to read (6% versus 19%; P <.01). Most participants in all three groups said their assigned table provided enough information to choose a contraceptive method.
                The table with categories communicated relative contraceptive effectiveness better than the tables with numbers. However, without being presented with numbers, participants grossly overestimated the absolute risk of pregnancy using contraceptives. A combination of categories and a general range of risk for each category may provide the most accurate understanding of both relative and absolute pregnancy risk.
The comparative efficacy of fertility awareness-based methods of contraception remains unknown. Despite intensive training and ongoing support, most participants in these trials discontinued prematurely. Contraceptive methods should be properly evaluated, preferably in randomized controlled trials, before adoption and dissemination.