Abstract
Background
A consultation for emergency contraception (EC) gives way to an opportunity to provide
women with an ongoing effective method of contraception.
Study Design
A review of the case notes of women seeking EC from a large family planning clinic
in Edinburgh, Scotland, was conducted to determine what percentage of women were provided
with an effective method of ongoing contraception.
Results
Case notes of 460 women presenting for EC over a 2-year period were reviewed. Women
were of mean age 26 years (range 15���49 years) and presented because they had used
no contraception (47%), experienced condom failure (42%) or missed oral contraceptive
pills (9%). Only 2% (n=11) were given an intrauterine device for EC. All women who had missed contraceptive
pills prior to taking EC opted to continue this method. Only 23% (n=89) of women using no method or condoms at EC received supplies of an effective contraceptive
method (pills, patch, injectable). Two thirds (n=263) of the women chose condoms for ongoing contraception.
Conclusion
Research is required to develop strategies to improve the uptake of effective contraception
after EC.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- International Consortium for Emergency Contraception. 2010 (access date 20th January 2011)
- Unintended pregnancy and use of emergency contraception among a large cohort of women attending for antenatal care or abortion in Scotland.Lancet. 2006; 368: 1782-1787
- Opinions Survey Report No. 41. Contraception and Sexual Health. United Kingdom: Office for National Statistics, 2009: 40 (access date 8th February 2011)
- Ulipristal acetate versus levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-analysis.Lancet. 2010; 375: 555-562
- Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception.Lancet. 2002; 360: 1803-1810
- Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception.Lancet. 1998; 352: 428-433
- Interventions for emergency contraception.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; : CD 001324
- Quick starting contraception. Faculty of sexual and reproductive healthcare. Clinical guidance. Clinical Effectiveness Unit. 2010 (access date 17th January 2011)
- Emergency contraception.in: Hatcher R.A. Trussell J. Stewart F. Contraceptive Technology, 19th revised edition. Ardent Media, New York2009: 107
- Population effect of increasing access to emergency contraceptive pills. A systematic review.Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 181-188
- Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention (full review).Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; : CD005497
- Attitudes of women in Scotland to contraception: a qualitative study to explore the acceptability of long-acting methods.J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008; 34: 213-217
- Interest in intrauterine contraception among seekers of emergency contraception and pregnancy testing.Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 833-839
- Impact on contraceptive practice of making emergency hormonal contraception available over the counter in Great Britain: repeated cross sectional studies.BMJ. 2005; 331: 271-276
Bayer Schering Pharma ��� from IMS Health Regional Sales Analysis Data, December 2009.
- Provision of emergency contraception: a pilot study comparing access through pharmacies and clinical settings.Contraception. 2008; 77: 181-185
- Community pharmacists providing emergency contraception give little advice about future contraceptive use: a mystery shopper study.Contraception. 2010; 82: 538-542
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 18, 2011
Accepted:
February 24,
2011
Received in revised form:
February 8,
2011
Received:
January 24,
2011
Footnotes
���There was no funding provided for this study.
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
