Upload
norah
View
51
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among adolescents. Systematic Review. NU517 Clinical Scholarship for Evidence Based Practice Cornelia C. Campbell (Roline) 22 September 2010. Clinical problem. Purpose of this systematic review. Unintended pregnancy among adolescents - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among adolescents
NU517 Clinical Scholarship for Evidence Based PracticeCornelia C. Campbell (Roline)
22 September 2010
PROBLEM AND PURPOSE
CLINICAL PROBLEM PURPOSE OF THIS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Unintended pregnancy among adolescents Public health challenge Developed &
developing countries Numerous prevention
strategies have been employed
Uncertainty exists regarding the effect of these strategies
To assess the effects of primary prevention interventions on unintended pregnancy in adolescents
SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESSSearch process: Used Cochrane Fertility Regulation
Group methods Searched:
a. Electronic resourcesb. Other resources
SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESS (CONT.)A. ELECTRONIC RESOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Specialist Health Promotion Register, Social Science Research Unit
(SSRU) Databases:
La Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Informacion en Ciencias de la Salud (LILACS) (Database 2008)
Social Science Citation Index (1981 – June 2007) Science Citation Index (1981 – June 2007) MEDLINE (1966 – Dec 2008) EMBASE (1980 – Nov 2008) Dissertations Abstracts Online
(http://library.dialog.com/bluesheets/html/bl0035.html) The Gray Literature Network (http://www.asti.gov/graylit/) HealthStar PsycINFO CINAHL POPLINE
SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESS (CONT.)A. OTHER RESOURCES
Contacted individual researchers Contacted National & International
research institutes, centers and organizations working in field of adolescent reproductive health Goal to obtain info on unpublished and/or
ongoing trials Read through references of all selected
studies Ensure no relevant studies left out
CRITIQUE SELECTION OF DATABASES Appropriate = yes
Focus on information resources with special interest in adolescent reproductive health
Comprehensive = yes Looked at registers,
databases, citation indexes and gray literature.
Also contacted organizations and individuals
Reviewed references
Search methods (FYI) No language
restrictions (Translations sought were needed)
No restrictions on journal of publication
No country or geographical restrictions
Search terms listed in appendix
SAMPLE SELECTION PROCESS (CONT.)INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA
INCLUSION EXCLUSION Individual and cluster
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated interventions aimed at :
Increasing knowledge and attitudes relating to risk of unintended pregnancies,
Promoting delay in the initiation of sexual intercourse and
Encouraged consistent use of birth control methods to reduce unintended pregnancies
• Participants were adolescents aged 10-19 years.
Quasi experimental studies Non-randomized controlled
studies None of the desired
outcomes were measured, Participants were pregnant Participants were couples Participants were above the
required age range Did not use the desired
intervention Stated method of
randomization not adequate.
QUALITY APPRAISALPROCESS USED TO EVALUATE THE METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY OF THE RESEARCH REPORTS Clearly described in the report = yes Six parameters used:
1. Generation of allocation sequence2. Concealment of allocation3. Blinding4. Incomplete outcome data5. Selective outcome reporting6. Other sources of bias
Set of criteria is well defined and appears to be defensible
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY1. GENERATION OF ALLOCATION SEQUENCEThis criterion was defined as: “Yes” when:
Method described was suitable to prevent bias Examples: computer generated random numbers;
table of random numbers; drawing lots “Unclear” when:
Method was not described but trail was described as “randomized”
“No” when: Sequences could be related to prognosis Examples: case record number; date of birth; day,
month or year of admission
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY2. CONCEALMENT OF ALLOCATIONThis criterion was defined as: “Yes” if:
Evidence that authors took proper measures to conceal allocation (example = centralized randomization)
“Unclear” if: Authors did not report concealment scheme,
or Reported a concealment approach that is
unclear “No” if:
Concealment of allocation was inadequate
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY3. BLINDING
This criterion was defined as: “Yes” if:
Evidence of no blinding and outcomes are unlikely to be influenced by lack of blinding, or
Blinding of participants and key study personnel was ensured and unlikely that it was broken, or
Outcome assessment was blinding and non-blinding of others unlikely to introduce bias
“Unclear” if: Insufficient information, or Outcome not addressed
“No” if: No blinding and outcome likely to be influenced by blinding, or Blinding carried out but likely to be broken
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY4. INCOMPLETE OUTCOME DATA
This criterion was defined as: “Yes” if:
Evidence of no missing outcome data, or Reason for missing outcome data unlikely to be related to true
outcome, or Missing outcome data balanced in numbers across intervention groups
and with similar reasons across groups for dichotomous outcome data Proportion of missing outcome data not enough to have clinically
relevant impact “Unclear” if:
Insufficient reporting of attrition/exclusions to permit judgment of “yes” or “no”
“No” if: Reason for missing outcome data likely related to true outcome Proportion of missing outcome data enough to induce clinically
relevant bias
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY5. SELECTIVE OUTCOME REPORTING
This criterion was defined as: “Yes” if:
All of the pre-specified (primary & secondary) outcomes of interest in the review have been reported as stated in protocol, or
Evident that published reports include all expected outcomes “Unclear” if:
Insufficient information to permit judgment of “yes” or “no” “No” if:
Not all of the study’s pre-specified outcomes have been reported, or One/more primary outcomes were reported using measurements,
analyses or subsets of data which were not pre-specified, or One/more reported primary outcomes were not pre-specified One/more outcomes of interest are reported incompletely Study report fails to include results for key outcome that would be
expected to have been reported
METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY6. OTHER SOURCES OF BIAS
This criterion was defined as: “Yes” if:
Study is free of other sources of bias “Unclear” if:
Insufficient information to assess if an important risk of bias exists, or
Insufficient rationale or evidence that an identified problem will introduce bias
“No” if: Has extreme baseline imbalance, or Claimed to have been fraudulent, or Stopped early due to some data-dependent process, or Potential source of bias related to specific study design used
DATA ANALYSIS Data extracted from each study
Methods Participants Interventions Outcome measures and results Missing data
DATA ANALYSIS Were individual patient data or aggregate data
used in the analysis? Both
11 studies randomized individuals 27 studies randomized clusters (schools, classrooms,
communities) 3 studies had a mix of individual and cluster randomized
data Does it include meta-analysis or meta-synthesis?
Meta-analysis was performed using 10 of the original 41 included studies
DATA SYNTHESIS Models used included:
Fixed Effect Model (FEM) and Random Effects Model (REM) for cases
where heterogeneity were detected Assessment of effect size and
confidence interval 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) Relative Risk (RR):
RR < 1 (negative RR) favors treatment/intervention RR > 1 (positive RR) favors no treatment/intervention
OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcomes:
• Unintended pregnancy Secondary outcomes:
• Report changes in knowledge and attitudes about the risk of unintended pregnancies
• Initiation of sexual intercourse• Use of birth control methods• Abortion• Childbirth• Morbidity related to pregnancy, abortion or childbirth• Mortality related to pregnancy, abortion or childbirth• Sexually transmitted infections (including HIV)
Table 1Effect of Multiple Interventions on Primary Outcome (Unintended Pregnancy) and Secondary Outcome (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)
Outcome or subgroup title
Intervention Effect Size Intervention precision
expressed as Relative Risk
(R.R)expressed as Fisher’s Z
Level ofSignificance (p) Confidence Interval (C.I.)
Unintended pregnancy(Individually RCT) 0.72 (0.51 – 1.03) 1.82 p = 0.069 95%
Unintended pregnancy(Cluster RCT) 0.50 (0.23 – 1.09) 1.73 p = 0.083 95%
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
(Individually RCT) 0.45 (0.18 – 1.15) 1.67 p= 0.096 95%
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
(Cluster RCT) 0.76 (0.27 – 2.14) 0.51 p = 0.61 95%
OUTCOME TABLE
Table 2Effect of Single Intervention on Primary Outcome (Unintended Pregnancy) and Secondary Outcome (Sexually Transmitted Diseases)
Outcome or subgroup title
Intervention Effect Size Intervention precision
expressed as Relative Risk
(R.R)expressed as Fisher’s Z
Level ofSignificance (p)
Confidence Interval (C.I.)
Unintended pregnancy
(Individually RCT) 1.01 (0.81 – 1.26) 0.06 p = 0.96 95%
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
(Individually RCT) 0.92 (0.75 – 1.13) 0.83 p= 0.40 95%
OUTCOME TABLE
RESULTSEFFECTS OF MULTIPLE INTERVENTIONS ONPRIMARY OUTCOME - UNINTENDED PREGNANCY (UP)
2 RCT’s found the risk of UP lower in intervention group Results approached statistical significance (p = 0.069) RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.51 – 1.03)
5 Cluster RCTs found risk of UP lower in intervention group Results were not statistically significant (p = 0.083) RR 0.50 (95% CI 0.23 – 1.09)
Sensitivity analysis excluding trials with high attrition rates found significantly lower risk of UP in intervention group RR 0.20 (95% CI 0.10 – 0.39)
Sensitivity analysis combining cluster RCTs with individual RCTs found statistically significant lower risk of UP in intervention group. RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.33 – 0.74)
RESULTSEFFECTS OF SINGLE INTERVENTION ONPRIMARY OUTCOME – UNINTENDED PREGNANCY
Effect of contraceptive promotion Two individually RCTs indicated no
statistically significant difference between intervention and control group
RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.26)
RESULTSEFFECTS OF MULTIPLE INTERVENTIONS ONSECONDARY OUTCOME – SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
No results reported None of the included RCTs analyzed
effect of multiple interventions on STDs
RESULTSEFFECTS OF SINGLE INTERVENTION ON SECONDARY OUTCOME –SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
Effect of Contraceptive Use on STD’s One individual RCT found lower rate of STD among members of
intervention group RR 0.52 (95% CI 0.20 to 1.31)
Two cluster RCTs measured reporting of STDs among intervention group members compared to control group members
RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.02) Neither individual nor cluster RCTs yielded statistically significant
findings Effect of Contraceptive Promotion on STD’s
Two individual RCTs indicated no statistically significant difference found in risk of STDs between intervention group & control group
RR 0.92 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.13)
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONSPRIMARY OUTCOME: UNINTENDED PREGNANCY Results were consistent across those
studies that measured this outcome Findings were not always statistically
significant Combined intervention effect was not
statistically significant Authors concluded that:
Limited information suggests use of multiple interventions can reduce rates of unintended pregnancies in adolescents
RESULTS & CONCLUSIONSSECONDARY OUTCOME: SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES
No conclusive determination could be made due to: Insufficient data Variations in methods of reporting
IMPLICATIONS Implications for nursing practice
Concurrent use of multiple interventions (education, skill-building & contraception promotion) reduces risk of unintended pregnancy in adolescents
However, offers little evidence about effect of each of these interventions offered alone
Overall: evidence remains inconclusive
IMPLICATIONS What changes in practice were
proposed? None Evidence cannot be used as basis to
recommend the use or discontinuation of interventions
IMPLICATIONS How can nurses use the findings in
practice? Although findings does not change
practice, nurses can use it in their role as researchers by: Developing uniform approach in reporting
outcomes Conducting more trials in low-income
countries to provide a balance of evidence with regard to obvious disparities in socio-cultural and economic situations.
REFERENCE Oringanje, C., Meremikwu, M. M., Eko,
H., Esu, E., Meremikwu, A., & Ehiri, J. E. (2009). Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4). doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005215.pub2