Understanding barriers to using long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are highly effective. In primary care, LARCs are prescribed less frequently than user-dependent contraceptives despite higher efficacy rates. Unplanned pregnancies are rising in the UK, and LARCs may have a role in reducing these through and redressing inequitable contraceptive access. To provide contraceptive services that offer maximal choice and patient benefit, we must understand what contraception users and healthcare professionals (HCPs) think about LARCs and uncover barriers to their use. METHODS: A systematic search using CINAHL, MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE identified research about LARC use for pregnancy prevention in primary care. The approach adhered to the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' methodology, critically appraised the literature, and used NVivo software to organise data and perform thematic analysis to determine key themes. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified: (1) trustworthiness (where and from whom participants obtained information regarding LARCs), (2) control (whether LARCs detract from personal autonomy) and (3) systems (how HCPs influenced LARC access). Misgivings about LARCs frequently arose from social networks and fears of surrendering control over fertility were prominent. HCPs perceived access issues and lack of familiarity or training as the main barriers to prescribing LARCs. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care plays a key role in improving access to LARC but barriers need to be addressed especially those involving misconception and misinformation. Access to LARC removal services are key to empower choice and prevent coercion. Facilitating trust within patient-centred contraceptive consult is essential.

A new era of HIV care for age-associated multimorbidity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The management of people with HIV has shifted focus from acute AIDS-defining illness towards improving detection of chronic disease and reducing impact of multimorbidity. In this review, we explore this shifting paradigm of HIV care and the evidence for alternative models proposed to provide integrated holistic services for people with HIV (PWH) with multimorbidity. RECENT FINDINGS: Despite 25 years of the antiretroviral treatment (ART) era an increased incidence of noncommunicable disease (NCD) and multimorbidity in PWH persists. As the world moves closer to universal ART coverage this phenomenon is now reported in low- and middle-income settings. Multimorbidity affects PWH disproportionately compared to the general population and results in reduced health related quality of life (HRQoL), greater hospitalization and higher mortality. There is evidence that NCD care provision and outcomes may be inferior for PWH than their HIV negative counterparts. Various models of integrated multimorbidity care have developed and are grouped into four categories; HIV specialist clinics incorporating NCD care, primary care services incorporating HIV care, community NCD clinics offering integrated HIV care, and multidisciplinary care integrated with HIV in secondary care. Evidence is limited as to the best way to provide multimorbidity care for PWH. SUMMARY: A new era of HIV care for an ageing population with multimorbidity brings challenges for health providers who need to develop holistic patient focused services which span a range of coexisting conditions.