Summary of findings 3. Counseling + audiovisual tool versus usual care.

Counseling + audiovisual tool compared with usual care for improving contraceptive use
Patient or population: young men or women with need for contraception Settings: medical office or clinic Intervention: counseling + audiovisual tool Comparison: usual care
Outcomes	Reported relative effect (reported P value)	Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Intervention
Effectiveness of method used at last intercourse (at 1 year) sexually active at follow‐up; not sexually active at baseline	Adjusted OR 1.51 (P < 0.05); Adjusted OR 2.53 (P < 0.01)	1195 (Danielson 1990)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low	Slide‐tape presentation + reproductive health consult; young men 15 to 18 years old
Partner's use of OC at last intercourse (at 1 year) sexually active at follow‐up; not sexually active at baseline	Adjusted OR 1.66 (P < 0.05); Adjusted OR 3.06 (P < 0.01)	1195 (Danielson 1990)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low	Slide‐tape presentation + reproductive health consult; young men 15 to 18 years old
No OC use (by 1 year) Chicago site	3.4% vs 8.8% (P = 0.05)	949 (Chewning 1999)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low	Computer‐aided decision‐making + standard counseling; young women to age 20
CI: Confidence interval not reported; OC: oral contraceptive; OR: odds ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.