User:Sbk1998/sandbox

combined oral contraceptive pill

Wikipedia Assignment 3:

1.      Proposed Changes (2 marks): The planned 1-2 sentences are clear, written in simple language, free of jargon, and understandable to a 12-year-old (grade 8). Technical and medical terms are wiki-linked if they have not yet appeared in the article. “People-first” language is used and the word “patient” is avoided (i.e., “People with diabetes” rather than “diabetics”).

Planned changes: “As well, birth control pills, such as COCPs, are often fortified with folic acid as it is recommended to take folic acid supplementation months prior to pregnancy to decrease the likelihood of neural tube defect in infants. With folic acid fortification, people  who have been taking COCPs for months before pregnancy may already have sufficient amounts. ”

2.      Rationale for proposed change (3 marks): Each of the new sentences (1-2) proposed for the article has been justified by the student. This justification includes why the change is necessary, where the information came from, and why the content they are adding or replacing is inadequate in its current form.

Why add this information:

Currently no information on folic acid supplementation of COCPs exists in this Wikipedia article. The addition is purely additive but can be useful for informing people who take COCPs about supplementation (in case they seek to get pregnant in the future, if they are currently taking folic acid supplementation additionally, or if they have an allergy/reason for aversion).

Where the info is from:

These two sources provide different supplementation. The information on the role of folic acid in preventing neural tube defects is from “Folic Acid Supplementation: An Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force”. The information on folic acid supplementation of birth control is from “Clinical utility of folate-containing oral contraceptives”.

Why these sentences:

The first sentence both states the reason for adding it into this article (to further clarification fortification of the pill) and to provide context of why it is recommended. This may help consumers of COCPs know more about what they are taking (preventing further subsidization or potentially harmful interactions with other medications).

The second sentence makes the link about why governments/ pharmaceutical companies would want to encourage folic acid subsidization.

3.      Area of controversy (if applicable) (1 mark): The student has shown areas of ambiguity or controversy for the proposed change and the position taken has been clearly justified.

(note if there is no possible controversy or ambiguity, skip this section and add 1 mark to question 2 for a total grade of 10)

There is not much controversy over this topic, the change was more so introduced because this supplementation is not well known.

4.      Critique of source (2 marks): The student has identified any validity issues or potential bias within the secondary source they have chosen to support their proposed change. The student’s written content demonstrates an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence they have identified. The student can speculate on the potential bias of their source and whether (and how) that might have affected their extracted information.

I decided to use two sources in this edit, one describing the role of folic acid supplementation on neural tube defect, with the other describing recommendations and introduction of folic acid supplementation to birth control pills. The first source is “Folic Acid Supplementation: An Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force”. The literature used was extensive, including many different types of studies (RCTs, observational studies, etc), as well as research from many different countries. Different databases were also used, including Cochrane reviews. This article also presented pros and cons of folic acid supplementation which decreased the likelihood of cherry-picking studies.

The second source “Clinical utility of folate-containing oral contraceptives” is a review that evaluates the supplementation of birth control pills with folic acid. By utilizing different sources through a literature review, as well as policy recommendations (both international and national [U.S.]) a more comprehensive picture on why supplementation occurs can be provided.

I believe that the two sources are in-line with what other literature and my tutor have suggested on the supplementation of COCPs with folic acid. One bias is that most COCPs are grouped under birth control pills, so it is hard to distinguish the prevalence between groups. As well, as both of these studies are U.S. focused (although using international sources), there is potential for the described need of folic acid supplementation (and the language used to frame this need) may not representative of women internationally (as some people may have high folate cultural diets or other more pressing issues).