Improving effective contraception uptake through provision of bridging contraception within community pharmacies: findings from the Bridge-it Study process evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To present process evaluation results from the Bridge-it Study, a pragmatic cluster randomised cross-over trial to improve effective contraception uptake through provision of the progestogen only pill (POP) plus sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinic rapid-access to women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (EC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A multimethod process evaluation was conducted to assess intervention implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors. Data were gathered from screening logs (n=599), observations of pharmacist training, analysis of data from 4-month follow-up questionnaires (n=406), monitoring of contemporaneous events and qualitative interviews with 22 pharmacists, 5 SRH clinical staff and 36 study participants in three participating UK sites in Lothian, Tayside and London. RESULTS: The intervention was largely delivered as intended and was acceptable. Pharmacists', SRH clinical staff and participants' accounts highlighted that providing a supply of POP with EC from the pharmacy as routine practice may have positive impacts on contraceptive practices in the short term, and potentially longer term. Key mechanisms of change included ease of access, increased awareness of contraception and services, and greater motivation and perceptions of self-efficacy. Few participants took up the offer to attend an SRH service (rapid-access component), and existing barriers within the SRH context were apparent (eg, lack of staff). Participant accounts highlight persistent barriers to accessing and using routine effective contraception remain. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation appeared to be acceptable and feasible, highlighting the potential for provision of POP within EC consultations as routine practice in community pharmacies. However, lack of engagement with the rapid access component of the intervention and existing barriers within the SRH context suggest that signposting to SRH services may be sufficient. Wider implementation should consider ways to address key implementation challenges to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to overcome persistent barriers to accessing and using effective contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70616901.

Provision of the progestogen-only pill by community pharmacies as bridging contraception for women receiving emergency contraception: the Bridge-it RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Unless women start effective contraception after using emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies that are unable to provide ongoing contraception (apart from barrier methods which have high failure rates). This means that women need an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic. We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort crossover trial to determine whether or not pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill plus the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in increased subsequent use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine). METHODS: Twenty-nine pharmacies in three UK cities recruited women receiving emergency contraception (levonorgestrel). In the intervention, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg of desogestrel) plus a card that provided rapid access to a local sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control arm, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The primary outcome was reported use of an effective contraception (hormonal and intrauterine methods) at 4 months. Process evaluation was also conducted to inform any future implementation. RESULTS: The study took place December 2017 and June 2019 and recruited 636 women to the intervention (n = 316) and control groups (n = 320). There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. Four-month follow-up data were available for 406 participants: 63% (198/315) of the control group and 65% (208/318) of the intervention group. The proportion of participants reporting use of effective contraception was 20.1% greater (95% confidence interval 5.2% to 35.0%) in the intervention group (58.4%, 95% confidence interval 48.6% to 68.2%) than in the control group (40.5%, 95% confidence interval 29.7% to 51.3%) (adjusted for recruitment period, treatment arm and centre; p = 0.011). The proportion of women using effective contraception remained statistically significantly larger, when adjusted for age, current sexual relationship and history of past use of effective contraception, and was robust to the missing data. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Provision of a bridging supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a pharmacist and the invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in a significant increase in self-reported subsequent use of effective contraception. This simple intervention has the potential to prevent more unintended pregnancies for women after emergency contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70616901. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The emergency contraceptive pill can prevent pregnancy following unprotected sex or a burst condom; however, unless women start a regular method of contraception they remain at risk of pregnancy. Most women obtain emergency contraception from a community pharmacy (chemist), but then require an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic for ongoing contraception. Getting an appointment can take time and unintended pregnancies can occur during this time. If a pharmacist could give women a small supply of a progestogen-only pill or 'mini-pill' with their emergency contraception, together with help to get an appointment at a clinic, then this might help more women to start effective contraception. We undertook a study in 29 pharmacies in Lothian, Tayside and London among women receiving emergency contraception. Pharmacists provided either their standard advice about contraception (control group) or the intervention. The intervention was a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill plus a rapid-access card, which, if presented at a sexual and reproductive health clinic, would help women get an appointment for contraception. The order in which the pharmacy provided either control or intervention was randomised. We conducted telephone interviews with the women 4 months later to find out what contraception they were using. A total of 636 women took part in the study, 316 in the intervention group and 320 in the control group. The proportion who said that they were using an effective method of contraception was around 20% larger in the intervention group. In addition, fewer women in this group said that they had used emergency contraception again. This study shows that community pharmacy provision of a small supply of progestogen-only pills and the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic results in a large increase in the use of effective contraception after emergency contraception. If this became routine practice then it could help prevent unintended pregnancies.

Abortion regulation in Europe in the era of COVID-19: a spectrum of policy responses.

BACKGROUND: Unprecedented public health actions restricting movement and non-COVID related health services are likely to have affected abortion care during the pandemic in Europe. In the absence of a common approach to ensure access to this essential health service, we sought to describe the variability of abortion policies during the outbreak in Europe in order to identify strategies that improve availability and access to abortion in times of public health crises. METHODS: We collected information from 46 countries/regions: 31 for which country-experts completed a survey and 15 for which we conducted a desk review. We describe abortion regulations and changes to regulations and practice during the pandemic. RESULTS: During COVID-19, abortions were banned in six countries and suspended in one. Surgical abortion was less available due to COVID-19 in 12 countries/regions and services were not available or delayed for women with COVID-19 symptoms in eleven. No country expanded its gestational limit for abortion. Changes during COVID-19, mostly designed to reduce in-person consultations, occurred in 13 countries/regions. Altogether eight countries/regions provided home medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol beyond 9 weeks (from 9 weeks+6 days to 11 weeks+6 days) and 13 countries/regions up to 9 weeks (in some instances only misoprostol could be taken at home). Only six countries/regions offered abortion by telemedicine. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of a unified policy response to COVID-19 restrictions has widened inequities in abortion access in Europe, but some innovations including telemedicine deployed during the outbreak could serve as a catalyst to ensure continuity and equity of abortion care.

Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Unless women start effective contraception after oral emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies. We hypothesised that pharmacist provision of the progestogen-only pill as a bridging interim method of contraception with emergency contraception plus an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, in which all methods of contraception are available, would result in increased subsequent use of effective contraception. METHODS: We did a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial in 29 UK pharmacies among women receiving levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Women aged 16 years or older, not already using hormonal contraception, not on medication that could interfere with the progestogen-only pill, and willing to give contact details for follow-up were invited to participate. In the intervention group, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg desogestrel) plus a rapid access card to a participating sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The order in which each pharmacy provided the intervention or control was randomly assigned using a computer software algorithm. The primary outcome was the use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) at 4 months. This study is registered, ISRCTN70616901 (complete). FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2017, and June 26, 2019, 636 women were recruited to the intervention group (316 [49·6%], mean age 22·7 years [SD 5·7]) or the control group (320 [50·3%], 22·6 years [5·1]). Three women (one in the intervention group and two in the control group) were excluded after randomisation. 4-month follow-up data were available for 406 (64%) participants, 25 were lost to follow-up, and two participants no longer wanted to participate in the study. The proportion of women using effective contraception was 20·1% greater (95% CI 5·2-35·0) in the intervention group (mean 58·4%, 48·6-68·2), than in the control group (mean 40·5%, 29·7-51·3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0·011).The difference remained significant after adjusting for age, current sexual relationship, and history of effective contraception use, and was robust to the effect of missing data (assuming missingness at random). No serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: Provision of a supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a community pharmacist, along with an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, results in a clinically meaningful increase in subsequent use of effective contraception. Widely implemented, this practice could prevent unintended pregnancies after use of emergency contraception. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment Programme project 15/113/01).

Shifting abortion care from a hospital to a community sexual and reproductive health care setting.

BACKGROUND: Community sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services are well placed to deliver abortion assessment services and early medical abortion (EMA), but comparative data on safety and acceptability from both settings are important for future service planning. METHODS: Retrospective review of computerised records of 1342 women undergoing outpatient EMA (≤9 weeks) in a community SRH or hospital department of gynaecology in the same city, and a self-completed, anonymous survey of 303 women requesting abortion at both sites. Primary outcome was safety in terms of re-attendance rates for a complication related to EMA. Secondary outcomes were telephone contact with each site for an EMA-related concern and satisfaction with information about abortion (defined as score out of 10) received at each site. RESULTS: There was no difference in re-attendance rates to either service for a complication following outpatient EMA (2.7%). A higher proportion of women undergoing EMA at the SRH site made telephone contact compared to women at the hospital site (18.8% vs 10.8%; p=0.033). Women rated both settings highly in terms of information received before abortion (9.2 and 9.6 out of 10) at the hospital and SRH sites, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that provision of outpatient EMA in a community SRH setting is as safe as that delivered from a hospital setting, and that women are similarly satisfied with the information they receive about abortion from each setting. More abortion assessment and outpatient EMA services in Great Britain could shift from hospital to community SRH settings.

The effect on use of making emergency contraception available free of charge.

BACKGROUND: Cost is a barrier to use of emergency contraception (EC). Since 2008, EC has been available free of charge without restriction in pharmacies throughout Scotland. A survey of EC use among women requesting abortion in 2010 allows comparison of use reported in earlier surveys, when EC was only available on prescription and when EC was available from the pharmacy but at a cost. STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire survey about knowledge of the availability of free EC from pharmacies, and its use to prevent the index pregnancy, was performed among 204 women requesting abortion in Edinburgh, Scotland. RESULTS: Seventy percent of 204 respondents (n=143) knew that EC was available free from pharmacies; 22 (11%) had used it in the cycle in which conception occurred. EC use was not influenced by knowledge of its availability free of charge. Women from affluent areas were significantly more likely to have used EC to try to prevent the pregnancy than counterparts from less affluent areas (p=.041). CONCLUSIONS: Neither availability from the pharmacy nor removal of a charge for EC has increased its use among women having an abortion in Scotland.

Assessment of a 'fast-track' referral service for intrauterine contraception following early medical abortion.

BACKGROUND: A 'fast-track' referral system for intrauterine contraception was established in 2007 between the medical abortion service at the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh and the principal family planning clinic (FPC) in Edinburgh. METHODS: Case note review of women fast-tracked for intrauterine contraception after medical abortion between January 2007 and June 2009. Main outcome measures were numbers of women referred, attendance rates, interval to insertion, devices chosen and known complication rates. RESULTS: Of the 237 women referred, 126 (53%) attended for intrauterine contraception insertion. Attenders were slightly but significantly older than non-attenders (mean ages of 30 and 27 years, respectively; p=0.003), less likely to live in an area of deprivation (p=0.045) and were significantly more likely to have attended the FPC in the past (p<0.0001). Most attenders (90%; n=113) proceeded to have an intrauterine method inserted; 57% (n=64) chose the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and 43% (n=49) chose a copper intrauterine device. The median interval to insertion was 21 (range 0-54) days. Of those women (n=55) who attended for routine follow-up 6 weeks later (49%), there were four (7.2%) cases of expulsion, two (3.6%) requests for removal and four (7.2%) cases of suspected infection. CONCLUSIONS: Only half the women fast-tracked for intrauterine contraception actually attended and these tended to be women who were pre-existing clients of the FPC. Consideration should therefore be given to provision of immediate insertion where possible.

Preventing repeat pregnancy in adolescents.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Teenage pregnancy is on a decline, but there are wide inequalities in those who are still becoming pregnant at an early age. Teenage pregnancy remains a public health concern. Numbers of repeat pregnancy in adolescence are small but contribute to poor health outcomes for young women and their children. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of studies have demonstrated the impact that low levels of educational attainment, lack of aspiration, low socioeconomic status, dislike of school, lack of family connectedness and poor parental monitoring can have on early sexual activity and, in some cases, pregnancy among adolescents. Risks for repeat pregnancy in adolescence would appear to be linked to whether the pregnancy was intended or not, and what incentives or motivations, if any, existed to prevent subsequent early pregnancies. SUMMARY: There would appear to be two options available to those who wish to reduce the negative health outcomes associated with repeat pregnancy in adolescence. First, to increase the life choices available to young women, which improve their social and economic circumstances. Secondly, to develop a clear understanding of pregnancy intentions within this group to ensure the provision of appropriate services which deliver the best possible outcomes for them and their child.

Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Advance provision of emergency contraception can circumvent some obstacles to timely use. We performed a meta-analysis to summarize randomized controlled trials evaluating advance provision of emergency contraception to explore effects on pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual and contraceptive behaviors. DATA SOURCES: In August 2006, we searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, POPLINE, MEDLINE, a specialized emergency contraception article database, and contacted experts to identify published or unpublished trials. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials comparing advance provision to standard access, defined as any of the following: counseling (with or without information about emergency contraception) or provision of emergency contraception on request at a clinic or pharmacy. TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. We performed a meta-analysis using Review Manager software. Eight randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria, representing 6,389 patients in the United States, China, and India. Advance provision did not decrease pregnancy rates, despite increased use (single use, odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72-3.70; multiple use: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.77-9.63) and faster use (weighted mean difference -14.6 hours, 95% CI -16.77 to -12.4 hours). Advance provision did not increase rates of sexually transmitted infections (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73-1.34), unprotected intercourse, or changes in contraceptive methods. Women who received emergency contraception in advance were as likely to use condoms as other women. CONCLUSION: Advance provision of emergency contraception did not reduce pregnancy rates and did not negatively affect sexual and reproductive health behaviors and outcomes compared with conventional provision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Family planning: the unfinished agenda.

Promotion of family planning in countries with high birth rates has the potential to reduce poverty and hunger and avert 32% of all maternal deaths and nearly 10% of childhood deaths. It would also contribute substantially to women's empowerment, achievement of universal primary schooling, and long-term environmental sustainability. In the past 40 years, family-planning programmes have played a major part in raising the prevalence of contraceptive practice from less than 10% to 60% and reducing fertility in developing countries from six to about three births per woman. However, in half the 75 larger low-income and lower-middle income countries (mainly in Africa), contraceptive practice remains low and fertility, population growth, and unmet need for family planning are high. The cross-cutting contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals makes greater investment in family planning in these countries compelling. Despite the size of this unfinished agenda, international funding and promotion of family planning has waned in the past decade. A revitalisation of the agenda is urgently needed. Historically, the USA has taken the lead but other governments or agencies are now needed as champions. Based on the sizeable experience of past decades, the key features of effective programmes are clearly established. Most governments of poor countries already have appropriate population and family-planning policies but are receiving too little international encouragement and funding to implement them with vigour. What is currently missing is political willingness to incorporate family planning into the development arena.

"Not that sort of practice": the views and behaviour of primary care practitioners in a study of advance provision of emergency contraception.

BACKGROUND: Advance supplies of emergency contraception (EC) were made available to women aged 16-29 through general practice and family planning services in Lothian, Scotland. Although this intervention was not associated with an overall reduction in abortion rates in Lothian, it was hypothesized that some general practices may have been more successful than others in promoting and delivering the intervention. OBJECTIVE: To investigate, using comparative case studies, whether, and why, some general practices were more successful in promoting and delivering advance supplies of EC than others. METHODS: Eleven purposively sampled general practices from the 97 participating in the intervention were studied. The number of packs of advance supplies distributed was recorded and distribution rates per 100 eligible women per practice calculated. 44 semi-structured interviews with staff were used to describe the mechanisms through which advance supplies were distributed and health professionals' views of the intervention. RESULTS: Distribution rates varied from 0.9 to 32.0 per 100 eligible women. Respondents described three mechanisms through which advance supplies were distributed: passive, reactive and proactive. Views about EC, and the suitability of their patient population for advance supplies, varied and configured specific practice contexts that facilitated or hindered the delivery of advance supplies. Favourable views and pro-active mechanisms were associated with higher distribution rates, less favourable or ambivalent views and passive delivery mechanisms with lower distribution rates. CONCLUSION: If primary care professionals are to actively engage with a sexual health promotion agenda they need to develop appropriate interpersonal skills and address their values, attitudes and cultural competences.

Advanced provision of emergency contraception does not reduce abortion rates.

A number of small studies have demonstrated increased use of emergency contraception (EC) when women have a supply available at home. It has been suggested that widespread use of EC could reduce abortion rates. We undertook a community intervention study designed to determine whether offering advanced supplies of EC to large numbers of women influenced abortion rates. All women aged between 16 and 29 years living in Lothian, Scotland, were offered, through health services, five courses of EC without cost to keep at home. Of a population of around 85,000 women in this age group, the study showed that an estimated 17,800 women took a supply of EC home and over 4500 of them gave at least one course to a friend. It was found that nearly half (45%) of women who had a supply used at least one course during the 28 months that the study lasted. In total, an estimated 8081 courses of EC were used. EC was used within 24 h after intercourse on 75% of occasions. Abortion rates in Lothian were compared with those from three other health board areas of Scotland. No effect on abortion rates was demonstrated with advanced provision of EC. The results of this study suggest that widespread distribution of advanced supplies of EC through health services may not be an effective way to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy in the UK.