↓ Skip to main content

Women’s experiences of ovulation testing: a qualitative analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Women’s experiences of ovulation testing: a qualitative analysis
Published in
Reproductive Health, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12978-015-0103-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Georgina Jones, Jill Carlton, Sarah Weddell, Sarah Johnson, William L. Ledger

Abstract

The introduction of home digital ovulation tests (OTs) has provided a simple solution for women wishing to optimise the timing of intercourse when trying to conceive. However, despite this, very little is understood about women's experiences of using these tests. We carried out qualitative, semi-structured telephone interviews with women who were seeking to conceive (not actively undergoing clinical investigation/fertility treatment) from the general UK population. The interviews were conducted following participation in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in which participants were either provided with digital home OTs to assist in timing intercourse (n = 18) or advised to have intercourse every 2-3 days (n = 18). The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and then analysed using Framework analysis to identify the themes. Data saturation was reached after 36 interviews. The use of the OT appeared to elicit 10 key themes, which could be described within the context of three overarching issues: 1) a positive impact (understanding the menstrual cycle, confirming when ovulating, emotional support, improving the relationship), 2) a negative impact (changing sex life and relationship with their partner, the emotional consequences of prolonged use, questions and uncertainty about what their results mean for them) and 3) the experiences of trying to conceive in general (use of clinical guidance and emotional experience). Overall, the use of home OTs were found to affect women's thoughts and feelings in multiple ways during attempts to conceive. Although some women reported a range of negative experiences when using OTs, they also reported similar negative experiences when trying to conceive without using the tests. However, there were many positive themes associated with OT use, including an increased understanding of the menstrual cycle, confirmation of ovulation timing and providing a source of help and support when trying to conceive. Overall, when women are trying to conceive, ensuring they have access to high-quality information, including use of OT, may be of benefit to help address some of the questions and uncertainties that were raised by the participants in this study. NCT01084304.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 26 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Psychology 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 30 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,352,477
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,111
of 1,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,058
of 353,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#27
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,207 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.