Skip to main content

Use of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a follow-up study

Author(s): Baird, AS; Trussell, James; Webb, A

Download
To refer to this page use: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/pr1j75z
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorBaird, AS-
dc.contributor.authorTrussell, James-
dc.contributor.authorWebb, A-
dc.date.accessioned2019-11-26T15:53:55Z-
dc.date.available2019-11-26T15:53:55Z-
dc.date.issued2015en_US
dc.identifier.citationBaird, AS, Trussell, J, Webb, A. (2015). Use of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a follow-up study. The journal of family planning and reproductive health care / Faculty of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, 41 (116 - 121). doi:10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100733en_US
dc.identifier.issn1471-1893-
dc.identifier.urihttp://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/pr1j75z-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Previously we showed that increasing choice of emergency contraception (EC) guided by medical eligibility, did not result in wholesale usage of ulipristal acetate (UPA). A further 12 month study assessed: Does offering choice of EC lead to change in methods used? Are women who choose UPA more likely than those who choose LNG to continue using condoms for subsequent contraception or to decline any ongoing contraception? Do more women choosing LNG quick start hormonal contraception? METHODS: Retrospective study of EC episodes (01/04/2012–31/03/2013), by quarters. Among women offered all three methods of EC (49.1%) we noted the method chosen, and decisions on ongoing contraception among those choosing either LNG or UPA. Differences were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: In 6110 episodes of EC, LNG was issued in 69.2%, UPA in 26.0%, and in 4.8% a Cu-IUD was fitted. Quarter-by-quarter, the data show a small decline in LNG use, suggesting plateauing by the last quarter, and a significant increase in UPA use between first and other three quarters (p<0.001). The use of the Cu-IUD remained static. The percentage offered three methods rose to 54.2%. In women offered full choice (3000; 49.1%), we saw a significant increase in choice of UPA from 39.3% to 48.6% (p<0.001). Women who chose LNG were more likely to quick start (p=0.02), or be continuing contraception already used (p<0.001). Overall, those choosing UPA were more likely to use condoms (p<0.001) but were no more likely to decline ongoing contraception (p=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in women using UPA for EC compared with our last study, particularly among those wishing to use condoms for continuing contraception. Women choosing LNG were more likely to be quick starting pills or continue current hormonal contraception. Detailed attention to continuing contraception following EC may be an important factor in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy.en_US
dc.format.extent116 - 121en_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.relation.ispartofThe journal of family planning and reproductive health care / Faculty of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologistsen_US
dc.rightsAuthor's manuscripten_US
dc.titleUse of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a follow-up studyen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.identifier.doidoi:10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100733-
pu.type.symplectichttp://www.symplectic.co.uk/publications/atom-terms/1.0/journal-articleen_US

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
nihms613296.pdf176.24 kBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.