Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial
Summary Background Unintended pregnancy remains a serious public health challenge in the USA. We assessed the effects of an intervention to increase patients' access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) on pregnancy rates. Methods We did a cluster randomised trial in 40 reproductive...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Lancet (British edition) 2015-08, Vol.386 (9993), p.562-568 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 568 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9993 |
container_start_page | 562 |
container_title | The Lancet (British edition) |
container_volume | 386 |
creator | Harper, Cynthia C, Prof Rocca, Corinne H, PhD Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH Morfesis, Johanna, NP Goodman, Suzan, MD Darney, Philip D, Prof Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof Speidel, J Joseph, Prof |
description | Summary Background Unintended pregnancy remains a serious public health challenge in the USA. We assessed the effects of an intervention to increase patients' access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) on pregnancy rates. Methods We did a cluster randomised trial in 40 reproductive health clinics across the USA in 2011–13. 20 clinics were randomly assigned to receive evidence-based training on providing counselling and insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) or progestin implants and 20 to provide standard care. Usual costs for contraception were maintained at all sites. We recruited women aged 18–25 years attending family planning or abortion care visits and not desiring pregnancy in the next 12 months. The primary outcome was selection of an IUD or implant at the clinic visit and secondary outcome was pregnancy within 12 months. We used generalised estimating equations for clustered data to measure the intervention effect on contraceptive selection, and used survival analysis to assess pregnancy rates. Findings Of 1500 women enrolled, more at intervention than control sites reported receiving counselling on IUDs or implants (565 [71%] of 797 vs 271 [39%] of 693, odds ratio 3·8, 95% CI 2·8–5·2) and more selected LARCs during the clinic visit (224 [28%] vs 117 [17%], 1·9, 1·3–2·8). The pregnancy rate was lower in intervention group than in the control group after family planning visits (7·9 vs 15·4 per 100 person-years), but not after abortion visits (26·5 vs 22·3 per 100 person-years). We found a significant intervention effect on pregnancy rates in women attending family planning visits (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·34–0·85). Interpretation The pregnancy rate can be reduced by provision of counselling on long-term reversible contraception and access to devices during family planning counselling visits. Funding William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62460-0 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1732091532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0140673614624600</els_id><sourcerecordid>1706206845</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-cb91cfc5b97126cf5f25638e6f021e7d9bcc01d5ad8915fdbbeb6f3e8895bf803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkVFrFDEQx4NY7LX6EZSAL_VhNckm2V0flFK0FgqCteBbyE5mr6l72WuSrdy37-5dW6Ev-hQYfvObzPwJec3Ze864_nDBuGSFrkp9xOU7LaRmBXtGFlxWslCy-vWcLB6RfXKQ0jVjbKLUC7IvNGt4JcsFCT_QjZD9EBL1ga4jLoMNsKHRZtyW8hXSy4tj-sfnK9oPYVnYiQ9LGvEWY_JtjxSGkKMFXM-ij9RS6MeUMU6W4IaVT-hojt72L8leZ_uEr-7fQ3L59cvPk2_F-ffTs5Pj8wKU4rmAtuHQgWqbigsNneqE0mWNumOCY-WaFoBxp6yrG64617bY6q7Eum5U29WsPCRHO-86DjcjpmymTwD2vQ04jMnwqhTTCVQp_gNlWjBdSzWhb5-g18MYw7TITAndSKXn2WpHQRxSitiZdfQrGzeGMzNnZ7bZmTkYw6XZZmfmvjf39rFdoXvseghrAj7vAJwud-sxmgQeA6DzESEbN_h_jvj0xAC9Dx5s_xs3mP5uY5IwbCeZHVxuDay8A0MAvjI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1702694560</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof ; Rocca, Corinne H, PhD ; Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH ; Morfesis, Johanna, NP ; Goodman, Suzan, MD ; Darney, Philip D, Prof ; Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof ; Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</creator><creatorcontrib>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof ; Rocca, Corinne H, PhD ; Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH ; Morfesis, Johanna, NP ; Goodman, Suzan, MD ; Darney, Philip D, Prof ; Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof ; Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background Unintended pregnancy remains a serious public health challenge in the USA. We assessed the effects of an intervention to increase patients' access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) on pregnancy rates. Methods We did a cluster randomised trial in 40 reproductive health clinics across the USA in 2011–13. 20 clinics were randomly assigned to receive evidence-based training on providing counselling and insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) or progestin implants and 20 to provide standard care. Usual costs for contraception were maintained at all sites. We recruited women aged 18–25 years attending family planning or abortion care visits and not desiring pregnancy in the next 12 months. The primary outcome was selection of an IUD or implant at the clinic visit and secondary outcome was pregnancy within 12 months. We used generalised estimating equations for clustered data to measure the intervention effect on contraceptive selection, and used survival analysis to assess pregnancy rates. Findings Of 1500 women enrolled, more at intervention than control sites reported receiving counselling on IUDs or implants (565 [71%] of 797 vs 271 [39%] of 693, odds ratio 3·8, 95% CI 2·8–5·2) and more selected LARCs during the clinic visit (224 [28%] vs 117 [17%], 1·9, 1·3–2·8). The pregnancy rate was lower in intervention group than in the control group after family planning visits (7·9 vs 15·4 per 100 person-years), but not after abortion visits (26·5 vs 22·3 per 100 person-years). We found a significant intervention effect on pregnancy rates in women attending family planning visits (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·34–0·85). Interpretation The pregnancy rate can be reduced by provision of counselling on long-term reversible contraception and access to devices during family planning counselling visits. Funding William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-6736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-547X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62460-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26091743</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LANCAO</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Birth control ; Clinical medicine ; Clinics ; Cluster Analysis ; Contraception ; Contraceptive Agents, Female - administration & dosage ; Contraceptives ; Directive Counseling ; Drug Implants ; Family planning ; Family Planning Services - education ; Female ; Flora ; Health care access ; Humans ; Internal Medicine ; Intervention ; Intrauterine Devices ; Levonorgestrel ; Patients ; Pregnancy ; Pregnancy Rate ; Pregnancy, Unplanned ; Public health ; Reproductive health ; United States ; Womens health ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>The Lancet (British edition), 2015-08, Vol.386 (9993), p.562-568</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2015 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Aug 8, 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-cb91cfc5b97126cf5f25638e6f021e7d9bcc01d5ad8915fdbbeb6f3e8895bf803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-cb91cfc5b97126cf5f25638e6f021e7d9bcc01d5ad8915fdbbeb6f3e8895bf803</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673614624600$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26091743$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocca, Corinne H, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morfesis, Johanna, NP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodman, Suzan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darney, Philip D, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</creatorcontrib><title>Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial</title><title>The Lancet (British edition)</title><addtitle>Lancet</addtitle><description>Summary Background Unintended pregnancy remains a serious public health challenge in the USA. We assessed the effects of an intervention to increase patients' access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) on pregnancy rates. Methods We did a cluster randomised trial in 40 reproductive health clinics across the USA in 2011–13. 20 clinics were randomly assigned to receive evidence-based training on providing counselling and insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) or progestin implants and 20 to provide standard care. Usual costs for contraception were maintained at all sites. We recruited women aged 18–25 years attending family planning or abortion care visits and not desiring pregnancy in the next 12 months. The primary outcome was selection of an IUD or implant at the clinic visit and secondary outcome was pregnancy within 12 months. We used generalised estimating equations for clustered data to measure the intervention effect on contraceptive selection, and used survival analysis to assess pregnancy rates. Findings Of 1500 women enrolled, more at intervention than control sites reported receiving counselling on IUDs or implants (565 [71%] of 797 vs 271 [39%] of 693, odds ratio 3·8, 95% CI 2·8–5·2) and more selected LARCs during the clinic visit (224 [28%] vs 117 [17%], 1·9, 1·3–2·8). The pregnancy rate was lower in intervention group than in the control group after family planning visits (7·9 vs 15·4 per 100 person-years), but not after abortion visits (26·5 vs 22·3 per 100 person-years). We found a significant intervention effect on pregnancy rates in women attending family planning visits (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·34–0·85). Interpretation The pregnancy rate can be reduced by provision of counselling on long-term reversible contraception and access to devices during family planning counselling visits. Funding William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Birth control</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Clinics</subject><subject>Cluster Analysis</subject><subject>Contraception</subject><subject>Contraceptive Agents, Female - administration & dosage</subject><subject>Contraceptives</subject><subject>Directive Counseling</subject><subject>Drug Implants</subject><subject>Family planning</subject><subject>Family Planning Services - education</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Flora</subject><subject>Health care access</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Intrauterine Devices</subject><subject>Levonorgestrel</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pregnancy</subject><subject>Pregnancy Rate</subject><subject>Pregnancy, Unplanned</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>Reproductive health</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Womens health</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0140-6736</issn><issn>1474-547X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkVFrFDEQx4NY7LX6EZSAL_VhNckm2V0flFK0FgqCteBbyE5mr6l72WuSrdy37-5dW6Ev-hQYfvObzPwJec3Ze864_nDBuGSFrkp9xOU7LaRmBXtGFlxWslCy-vWcLB6RfXKQ0jVjbKLUC7IvNGt4JcsFCT_QjZD9EBL1ga4jLoMNsKHRZtyW8hXSy4tj-sfnK9oPYVnYiQ9LGvEWY_JtjxSGkKMFXM-ij9RS6MeUMU6W4IaVT-hojt72L8leZ_uEr-7fQ3L59cvPk2_F-ffTs5Pj8wKU4rmAtuHQgWqbigsNneqE0mWNumOCY-WaFoBxp6yrG64617bY6q7Eum5U29WsPCRHO-86DjcjpmymTwD2vQ04jMnwqhTTCVQp_gNlWjBdSzWhb5-g18MYw7TITAndSKXn2WpHQRxSitiZdfQrGzeGMzNnZ7bZmTkYw6XZZmfmvjf39rFdoXvseghrAj7vAJwud-sxmgQeA6DzESEbN_h_jvj0xAC9Dx5s_xs3mP5uY5IwbCeZHVxuDay8A0MAvjI</recordid><startdate>20150808</startdate><enddate>20150808</enddate><creator>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof</creator><creator>Rocca, Corinne H, PhD</creator><creator>Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH</creator><creator>Morfesis, Johanna, NP</creator><creator>Goodman, Suzan, MD</creator><creator>Darney, Philip D, Prof</creator><creator>Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof</creator><creator>Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0TT</scope><scope>0TZ</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8C2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KB~</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150808</creationdate><title>Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial</title><author>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof ; Rocca, Corinne H, PhD ; Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH ; Morfesis, Johanna, NP ; Goodman, Suzan, MD ; Darney, Philip D, Prof ; Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof ; Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-cb91cfc5b97126cf5f25638e6f021e7d9bcc01d5ad8915fdbbeb6f3e8895bf803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Birth control</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Clinics</topic><topic>Cluster Analysis</topic><topic>Contraception</topic><topic>Contraceptive Agents, Female - administration & dosage</topic><topic>Contraceptives</topic><topic>Directive Counseling</topic><topic>Drug Implants</topic><topic>Family planning</topic><topic>Family Planning Services - education</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Flora</topic><topic>Health care access</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Intrauterine Devices</topic><topic>Levonorgestrel</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pregnancy</topic><topic>Pregnancy Rate</topic><topic>Pregnancy, Unplanned</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>Reproductive health</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Womens health</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocca, Corinne H, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morfesis, Johanna, NP</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Goodman, Suzan, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Darney, Philip D, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>News PRO</collection><collection>Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Lancet Titles</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Newsstand Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harper, Cynthia C, Prof</au><au>Rocca, Corinne H, PhD</au><au>Thompson, Kirsten M, MPH</au><au>Morfesis, Johanna, NP</au><au>Goodman, Suzan, MD</au><au>Darney, Philip D, Prof</au><au>Westhoff, Carolyn L, Prof</au><au>Speidel, J Joseph, Prof</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial</atitle><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle><addtitle>Lancet</addtitle><date>2015-08-08</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>386</volume><issue>9993</issue><spage>562</spage><epage>568</epage><pages>562-568</pages><issn>0140-6736</issn><eissn>1474-547X</eissn><coden>LANCAO</coden><abstract>Summary Background Unintended pregnancy remains a serious public health challenge in the USA. We assessed the effects of an intervention to increase patients' access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) on pregnancy rates. Methods We did a cluster randomised trial in 40 reproductive health clinics across the USA in 2011–13. 20 clinics were randomly assigned to receive evidence-based training on providing counselling and insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) or progestin implants and 20 to provide standard care. Usual costs for contraception were maintained at all sites. We recruited women aged 18–25 years attending family planning or abortion care visits and not desiring pregnancy in the next 12 months. The primary outcome was selection of an IUD or implant at the clinic visit and secondary outcome was pregnancy within 12 months. We used generalised estimating equations for clustered data to measure the intervention effect on contraceptive selection, and used survival analysis to assess pregnancy rates. Findings Of 1500 women enrolled, more at intervention than control sites reported receiving counselling on IUDs or implants (565 [71%] of 797 vs 271 [39%] of 693, odds ratio 3·8, 95% CI 2·8–5·2) and more selected LARCs during the clinic visit (224 [28%] vs 117 [17%], 1·9, 1·3–2·8). The pregnancy rate was lower in intervention group than in the control group after family planning visits (7·9 vs 15·4 per 100 person-years), but not after abortion visits (26·5 vs 22·3 per 100 person-years). We found a significant intervention effect on pregnancy rates in women attending family planning visits (hazard ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·34–0·85). Interpretation The pregnancy rate can be reduced by provision of counselling on long-term reversible contraception and access to devices during family planning counselling visits. Funding William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26091743</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62460-0</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0140-6736 |
ispartof | The Lancet (British edition), 2015-08, Vol.386 (9993), p.562-568 |
issn | 0140-6736 1474-547X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1732091532 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Birth control Clinical medicine Clinics Cluster Analysis Contraception Contraceptive Agents, Female - administration & dosage Contraceptives Directive Counseling Drug Implants Family planning Family Planning Services - education Female Flora Health care access Humans Internal Medicine Intervention Intrauterine Devices Levonorgestrel Patients Pregnancy Pregnancy Rate Pregnancy, Unplanned Public health Reproductive health United States Womens health Young Adult |
title | Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T21%3A37%3A08IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reductions%20in%20pregnancy%20rates%20in%20the%20USA%20with%20long-acting%20reversible%20contraception:%20a%20cluster%20randomised%20trial&rft.jtitle=The%20Lancet%20(British%20edition)&rft.au=Harper,%20Cynthia%20C,%20Prof&rft.date=2015-08-08&rft.volume=386&rft.issue=9993&rft.spage=562&rft.epage=568&rft.pages=562-568&rft.issn=0140-6736&rft.eissn=1474-547X&rft.coden=LANCAO&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)62460-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1706206845%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1702694560&rft_id=info:pmid/26091743&rft_els_id=S0140673614624600&rfr_iscdi=true |