Experiences of contraceptive use and contraceptive counseling among German psychology students: a cross-sectional online survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background In recent years, hormonal contraceptive use has declined in Germany, yet little is known about the contraceptive needs and preferences of its population. This study addresses this gap by (1) identifying attitudes, subjective knowledge, and information needs of psychology students regarding contraceptive methods, (2) evaluating person-centeredness (PC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in contraceptive counseling, and (3) comparing users of hormonal and non-hormonal methods regarding attitudes, knowledge, and age. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted via an online survey among psychology students in Germany who were biologically capable of becoming pregnant. PC in counseling was assessed using the Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling Scale (PCCC), while SDM was measured using the CollaboRATE questionnaire and Control Preference Scale. Attitudes, knowledge, and information needs were evaluated through adapted or self-developed items. The PCCC was translated and adapted using a team translation protocol (TRAPD). Results Of 126 participants, 82.6% used at least one contraceptive method, mainly condoms (43.8%) and the combined pill (19.8%). Hormonal users were younger (M=22.84) than non-hormonal users (M=25.40). Attitudes toward hormonal contraception were generally negative. Participants reported good or basic knowledge of 9 out of 15 methods; non-hormonal users knew more methods than hormonal users. Gynecologists (36.7%) were the most frequent information source. About 35.7% had received contraceptive counseling in the previous year but reported low satisfaction with the information provided. Overall, PC and SDM were only partially implemented in contraceptive counseling. Conclusion Findings highlight the need for more person-centered counseling to support informed decisions. The results can inform interventions aimed at improving contraceptive knowledge among users and enhancing PC and SDM practices among gynecologists.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".