MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7036106231

Avaliação da segurança, eficácia e custo-efetividade dos métodos contraceptivos de longa duração em comparação aos métodos convencionais em adolescentes

2020· article· pt· W7036106231 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2020
Typearticle
Languept
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueClimate variability and models
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésObservational studyPregnancyPopulationIncidence (geometry)Meta-analysisSystematic reviewLogistic regression
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Adolescent pregnancy is a worldwide concern, affecting not only the teenager's life but also the community. The unmet need for acceptable and effective contraceptive methods in this population contributes to high adolescent pregnancy rates. Our objective was to assess the safety and efficacy of long-term reversible contraceptives (LARC) for adolescent girls and estimate these methods' cost-effectiveness compared to non-LARC methods. Within this scope, we consider the willingness to pay for contraceptive methods of adolescent girls and their parents. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy, safety, adherence, and preference of choice of contraception LARC and SARC methods in young women. We performed an incidence meta-analysis to estimate the average rates of continuation and pregnancy of four contraceptive methods. We carry out systematic searches in the PUBMED, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases. There was no restriction on the language. We included observational studies or RCTs. Two authors independently selected abstracts and reviewed full-text articles, and extracted data. We used RevMan 5.3 software in the first meta- analysis to combine the results of the studies. The data were derived in risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% CI using a meta-analytic model of random effects. For the meta- analysis of incidence, we used the Metafor and Meta packages in RStudio software (version 1.1.4). We collected the pregnancy and continuation rates for each contraceptive method, used the inverse of variance in all calculations, and applied the LOGIT transformation. We used the random-effects meta-analytical model. The Cochrane collaboration tool and New Castle- Ottawa were used to assess all included ECR and observational studies' quality and bias, respectively. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Concerning cost-effectiveness, we developed a Markov model to mirror the clinical and economic impact of adopting LARC methods compared to combined oral contraceptives in sexually active Brazilian adolescent girls from the perspective of the public health system and with a time horizon of five years. Costs are expressed in 2018 US dollars (US $), and we applied a 5% discount rate to clinical outcomes and costs. The model's inputs included the costs of contraceptive methods, the rate of discontinuation and compliance of the contraceptives, abortion rates, and the costs of childbirth and neonatal care associated with pregnancies. The model's outcomes were the number of pregnancies, abortions, and the number of preterm and term births avoided. We conducted univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyzes. Finally, we conducted a study of willingness to pay for contraceptive methods. The willingness to pay was assessed by a cross-sectional study using a questionnaire applied to Brazilian adolescents aged 13 to 19 and their parents. Values are expressed as mean ± SD in reais (R $). Spearman's correlation was performed for the socioeconomic status of the parents and the age of adolescents. Chi-square analyzes were carried out between the types of methods and the adolescents 'and parents' perspectives. We performed the Bland-Altman chart to determine an agreement between the pairs and their willingness to pay. The first meta-analysis included 25 studies, of which eight compared the non-LARC and LARC methods, and 17 studies performed comparisons between the LARC methods. There was greater adherence favoring LARC methods in 12 months than non-LARC methods [RR 1.60 (95% CI 1.21–2.12) I2 = 88%; 1,606 young women]. However, young women still opt for non-LARC methods [RR 0.37 (95% CI 0.17–0.80) I2 = 99%; 2,835 young women]. Pregnancies in LARC methods were rare, with xii very few events. In the incidence meta-analysis, we showed that the oral contraceptive pill's continuation rate was estimated at 51%. At the same time, for the copper IUD, LNG-IUS, and implant, it was 77%, 84%, and 86%, respectively. The oral contraceptive pill's combined pregnancy rate was 11%, while for the copper IUD, LNG-IUS, and implant, it was 5%, 1.7%, and 1.8%, respectively. Our cost-effectiveness model showed that the copper IUD was dominant 100% of the time for all outcomes and a five-year budgetary impact of - $ 422,431,269.10. The LNG-IUS and the subdermal implant were cost-effective for all outcomes. However, in the budgetary impact analysis of the subdermal implant, it represented a savings of - US $ 851,686,904.96 in five years. A total of 165 pairs of questionnaires were answered. The non-LARC method was significantly more acceptable to pay out of pocket than the LARC method for adolescents and parents. Parents and their daughters are willing to pay R $ 52.25 ± 22.48 and R $ 51.63 ± 21.24 out of their pocket by the non-LARC method, while by the LARC method, when they are subsidized, they are willing to pay R $ 176.83 ± 130.34 and R $ 174.83 ± 143.64, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis indicated agreement between peers and the price they are willing to pay for each contraceptive method. The LARC methods are more effective in preventing pregnancy in adolescent girls, being more cost-effective than the birth control pill. However, non-LARC methods are still more willing to pay for parents and their daughters.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,019
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,102

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0190,035
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0110,021
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,258
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)→Même sujetClimate variability and models→Travaux en français237 207→