Template talk:BirthControl infobox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] From development disccusion at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed

Below is a copy of the discussion that took place in the development of this template at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed: David Ruben Talk 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


This is an infobox for all birth control methods. It was proposed on the Birth Control article talk page. Feel free to propose changes and edit until we reach a consensus. Then we can convert it to a template. -- MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mamageek. Please see my reply on Talk:Condom. Is there an infobox for methods of protection against STD's? Because I think there should be some discussion taking into account the dual use of the device. Best wishes, Kasreyn 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
There is already a line in the infobox relating to STD protection. I additionally added the term "Birth Control" before "Type" in order to make the infobox more general in nature. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Mamageek for jumping in to get this started. I've converted it to a wikitable which will be easier to edit and added the additional fields I first proposed on Talk:Birth control. I've taken the basic style from Template:Drugbox, upon which I recently worked. The image will be optional (can't think there will be one suitable for coitus interruptus !), and with optional parameters of width (else defaults 250) and caption. My intention is to add a test for the 'period_LighterHeavier' value so that it either appears in one or other of the Advantage/Disadvantage sections (or not at all if undefined - eg for the natural methods). I will add conditional tests to final version, so that some entire sections are hidden if not defined (eg the Medical Notes section). I've put in dummy values for IUDs to illustrate how some of fields might be completed. David Ruben Talk 17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the new layout. I made a minor change in wording for consistency. Three of these fields apply only to certain types of BC (clinic review, periods, weight gain). I also see a problem with putting Advantages and Disadvantages in an Infobox at all. Some methods have long lists of either or both (see Fertility Awareness, Depo Provera, for instance). How, then, would you decide which benefits/effects make the Infobox, and which are only in the article? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hence those (clinic review, periods, weight gain) fields will be optional and the rows not displayed at all if not defined. As to Depo-provera - main risk emblasened across article is FDA warning re osteoporosis - but no such warning in UK (last time I remembered to look), issues of infection/bruising/bleeding at injection site wont warrant mentioning on template- I would accept "FDA warn re bone thinning", but main factors for hormonal methods risks & benefits will be DVT incr,breast cancer incr, endometrial cancer decr, strokes if history migraines, and a medical note that risks of combined pills for smokers is increased such that after age 35, smokers should be on progesterone only pill instead (35 is the cut off for smoker&COCP being more risky than "natural" outcome of smoker&pregnant). David Ruben Talk 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Think about how this will be used, effects on periods heaviness will be too complex to try and rigidly define. The only one that increases is IUDs and merely stating "heavier" is unfair as this should really be "may be heavier", similarly for COCP periods are generally lighter but also regular (one it its indications), whereas for POP they are lighter, infrequent and irregular, and for Depo-provera lighter and very infrequent (majority women by 2nd injection stop having altogether). So I shall split these into separate optional paramenters - if not defined then row not shown (so FA wont use or show either).David Ruben Talk 23:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the advantages/disadvantages section doesn't really belong. Too much of it applies only vary narrowly... to hormonal methods and IUDs, but not to the rest at all. And STD-protection yes/no doesn't belong universally in "advantages." I preferred MamaGeek's much shorter version. moink 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
In the "Live" version, many of the parameters if not defined will not be shown at all, specifically because they do not apply to many of the natural methods. However, as a means of sumarising information, the fields are there so that data can be presented in a consistant manner. Fair point about STD - I'll make it jump between sections then. David Ruben Talk 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick question before I turn this live with coding - what to call it ? Options might include 'BirthControl infobox' (my preference and will auto-locate to better place in lists of infoboxes better that other options) ), 'Infobox BirthControl', 'BirthContolBox', 'Birthcontrolbox' (but last two sound as if control boxes for birthing process). Remember Template:BirthControl already active as the bottom navigation/summary box for these articles. David Ruben Talk 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Great work everyone. I like "BirthControl infobox", but maybe something shorter like 'BC box" could also work.--Andrew c 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I like the succintness of "BC box", but "BirthControl infobox" is the most descriptive and the name I would prefer. Lyrl 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Coding issues

Template transcribed from proposal to beta-test live version with conditional coding inserted (see final point e possible display bug).

  • Description of the conditional Parsers functions may be found at Wikimedia:ParserFunctions
  • The STD variable is tested repeated, for both 'Yes' and 'yes' in the advantages section. In the disadvantages section it is tested for 'No' and 'no', but additionally for the parameter being undefined in which case a '?' is shown.
  • Optional parameters not shown if undefined, but view on template page suggests this is currently causing an additional row to be included for the section headers. Will need try out on some articles, but if confirmed, I'd appreciate anyone with coding experience try to help fix this... David Ruben Talk 02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems with coding seem sorted, so removed queries in the process as of this version David Ruben Talk 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Note the addition of a name parameter - used because Oral contraception currently mostly about 'Combined oral contrceptive pill' (article of that name redirects to Oral contraceptive formulation that covers both COCP & POPs) David Ruben Talk 01:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] text alignment

Is there any way to left-align the actual info, instead of having it justified, as it is now? The justification leads to some strange splitting of text in practice (see the NFP page). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi MammaGook - just back from my holiday. One can change formating, but to be honest, I'm not quite sure of the problem that you are seeing on NFP - what browser are you using - on my Internet Explorer, all data is displayed left-aligned and without any additional spacing that would make it justified (i.e. as per a newspaper when all but last line of a paragraph made to reach right-margin). Is this page still displayed in your browser as justified as of today 29th June ? - if so I can easily adjust the coding... David Ruben Talk 14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still seeing it in the Benefits section. I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0 MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is really strange, as quite clearly left-aligned by default when I also view with Internet Explorer 6 under Windows ME. I wonder if this is how your "my preferences" are set up? Under Skin are you using the "MonoBook (default)", and under Misc is "Justify paragraphs" unticked ? If it is not due to any of these points please let me know and I can easily add the markup code to force left-alignment :-) David Ruben Talk 08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failure rates

I've added a "per year" to the template to reflect that failure rates are per year, not per use. That makes a difference... Conscious 13:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Not all birth control methods have their failure rates reported per year. LAM is for six months or until the woman's menstruation returns, whichever is shorter. EC is per-use.
Could this parameter be changed to be a default of "per year" but have an option for alternate text? Lyrl Talk Contribs 17:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
So done - changed so that section header shows (per failure_measure) . In majority of cases, failure_measure need not be specified and default is to show 'year'. Only time, that I can think of that needed, is for emergency contraception which is not routine but undertaken as one-off events - in which case set this parameter as being per use. David Ruben Talk 22:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages/Disadvantages

The classification of any effect as an advantage or disadvantage is POV--they should be listed together as Effects, rather than separated according to an opinion of what is beneficial or harmful. Weight gain may be considered an advantage for some, while those who think STDs should be there to intimidate youths may consider disease protection a disadvantage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The Advantages & Disadvantages allows for NPOV (if one can consider an increase or decrease in an outcome as a viewpoint) as both plus and minus points can be mentioned (NPOV is not about a bland averaged but reporting both sides fairly). The aim is one of distinguishing side-effects and concerns that women often express over a particular method (weight gain is far more frequently asked of me as a GP rather than precise differences in effectiveness between two methods of contraception). Likewise use of a particular method and not getting an STD is surely better than use of a method and getting an STD - however whether one should be using a particular method in the first place is not the subjective opinion that this template is designed for. What the social implications are of the differences in effects of various methods and how this affects ethical/religious views on availability or promotion of particular forms is not what this summarising template is about (for that discuss as prose within the article or in the more general Birth control umbrella article). Reduction in ovarian & endometrial cancers for those on combined hormonal pill would seem to far outweight risks of stroke, DVT, breast cancer, so POV would be to state that evidence based medicine suggests that all women who are not actively trying to conceive should be on the pill - hmmmm no one is seriously going to try to enact that public health policy, and nor does listing the increases or descreases imply such a POV - effects at reducing or increasing certain rates of cancer can though be distinguished in the current form of the template. Finally splitting information between parameters of the template helps provide a consistamt approach at this summarising, otherwise we may as well have just an uncoordinated single parameter of "Information" with free text in a variety of styles and level of coverage in each article. David Ruben Talk 04:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, listing increases or decreases isn't POV, but characterizing a specific change as "Good Thing" or "Bad Thing," which "Advantages/Disadvantages" does, is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Need to call them something - one has in drug literature "purpose" or "indications" as the positive things that a treatment aims to achieve and "side-effects", "warnings" and "contraindications" as things that limit the appropriateness of using the drug, but we don't accuse drug companies of bias purely on basis of the use of these standard headings (failing to include information within a section yes). Nor, as an example, would debate over say the wisdom of treating mild depression with an SSRI (which quite rightly belongs in the article) be appropriate in the dry descriptive encyclopaedic sections of Indications and Side-effects, but rather in a separate section of "Debate" or "Controversy". So would "Actions and therapeutic effects" & "Side effects" be any less POV in your POV ? The current template section terminology is certainly shorter and, to my personal pro-contraception view point, "disadvantages" sounds much stronger than just "side effects". David Ruben Talk 05:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The characterization of an effect as intended occurs from the perspective of someone who prescribes the drug, or the drug company which intends it to work. We don't accuse them of bias, but it's still a specific perspective on the situation rather than an objective category that exists independent of any personal opinion about what the drug should do. What's intended and what's a side effect changes even within the medical community, as with offlable prescriptions. I'd rather the template be divided along more objective categories, such as types or areas of effect (effect against STDs? Effect on periods?) rather than whether such effects are good or bad. Then each reader, who has his or her own perspective on whether such things should occur, can decide which is an advantage or disadvantage. We're not here to provide advice on which method to use, just information about them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
So we would have list of parameters of possible effects eg Cancers, Cardiovascular, Weight, STD prevention etc - I suppose one could so structure if consensus of other editors so wished. However I think this will seem more awkward and is being unnecessarily slavish to those who might see offense at the current template setup (we don't allow those who object to a particular drug to alter the standard decriptive system of "Indication", "Caution", "Warnings" & "Side effect" structure as set out in the WP:MEDMOS. It will I suspect reduce the usefulness of the template as a summarisation for those who are pro-contraception but trying to compare one method against another. Time I think to see what other editors have to contribute to this David Ruben Talk 08:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem with the weight gain parameter is more that it always appears in disadvantages - the Lactational Amenorrhea Method article currently has "weight loss" listed as a disadvantage of the method. Funny. Anyway, on topic: I prefer having advantages and disadvantages listed in the infobox. I believe it greatly increases the utility of the infobox. Any POV introduced by particular use of the box should be able to be solved by discussion on the Talk page of the particular method. Lyrl Talk Contribs 23:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

re Weight loss - the parameter previously only considered weight loss as 'Yes' occuring or 'No' not induced. I've now added in option of 'Loss' when it is shown as an advantage (heading is 'Weight loss' rather than 'Weight gain'). Likewise STD protection, quite a few articles had this as 'Possible' which I have now included in the template coding. Let me know if any foul-ups on any page you view (but I think I have checked them all). David Ruben Talk 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest having sections "Advantages", "Disadvantages", and "Other effects". Then editors of each birth control page can decide where to put each effect. I would tend to put weight gain or loss under "Other effects" since it could be good, bad or neutral for different people. --Coppertwig 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"

I would like to edit this infobox to change "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate". This is the usage in some birth control literature e.g. [1] and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard. The phrase "pregnancy rate" is much more courteous towards those people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy. "Failure rate" can be perceived as very negative towards those people; "pregnancy rate" is neutral and its meaning is quite clear -- even slightly clearer than "failure rate", perhaps, which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy. I'm also planning to similarly edit the wording on the birth control and natural family planning pages and perhaps other pages. I'm leaving an opportunity for discussion before making the change. --Coppertwig 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: "which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy" – but the whole point of contraception is NOT to "achieve pregnancy". A pregnancy despite use of contraception is therefore not what is being sought and not a "success" as far as the method goes, indeed it is a negative reflection on the particular method. Terminology usage in the UK is still to describe failure rates. The view that "usage in some birth control literature ... and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard" is a personal opinion and thus excluded from article space by WP:NOR, unless you can site an authorative source explaining that the terminology is to change. The reference given is for a US webpage in 1997, which is hardly indicative of a changing use of terminology (just that this one paper in 1997 so phrased).
Of course I agree none of this implies any judgement on those people so borne, but we do use terms such as "planned pregnancy" or "unplanned pregnancy" when making antenatal referals or supporting people in making a decission on how they wish to proceed (continue with pregnancy or not to) - see current UK FPA's Information about unplanned pregnancy in Northern Ireland. David Ruben Talk 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Further, and from 2006, example of terminology usage comes from Family Health International, Using Pills Correctly which describes "Typical failure rates among pill users are as high as 12% to 20% in some surveys." So I am not convinced of a changing international use of terms. David Ruben Talk 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The only people I've seen take offense to the term "failure rate" are natural family planning groups, whose views that it's frequently immoral to avoid pregnancy are certainly out of the mainstream. I have seen objections to the term "failure rate" when used for barrier methods of birth control, as condom research about breakage, slippage, etc. will refer to those events as "failures" regardless of pregnancy outcome. The duplicate meaning of failure with respect to these methods can lead to confusion, and "pregnancy rate" is more precise. Not an issue with any of the other types of methods, though, so I don't have a strong opinion either way. Lyrl Talk C 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks Lyrl, I was about to add that this point has also been opened at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". Given that larger number of editors are likely to view this issue there, I think further debate should NOT be duplicated/continued here :-) David Ruben Talk 03:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. This discussion is to continue at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate". Sorry, I should have directed discussion to a single place in the first place. --Coppertwig 03:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(Note that in the discussion on that page, I've mentioned two new test versions of this infobox, including one that allows the default text (usually a question mark) to display properly.) --Coppertwig 04:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note ongoing discussion and proposal to install newer version of infobox at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" --Coppertwig 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "first year" versus "per year"

  • The failure rate in this template should by default state it is for the "first year" not "per year".
  • For example, a large WHO randomized, multicenter trial reported a cumulative 12-year pregnancy rate of 2.2 per 100 women for the TCu380A IUD (an average rate of 0.18 pregnancies per 100 women per year over 12 years) that was equivalent to a cumulative 10-year pregnancy rate of 1.8 per 100 women for female sterilization (an average rate of 0.18 pregnancies per 100 women per year over 10 years). PMID 9494767
I suggest changing the template from:
| Failure rates (per year)
to:
| Failure rates (first year)
and the template instructions from:
| failure_measure = year
to:
| failure_measure = first year

FP101 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/r/Template_talk%7EBirthControl_infobox_0e7a.html"