OBJECTIVES: to characterize emergency contraception (EC) users and clinical trial participants in the United States and the United Kingdom, comparing previous EC use and awareness, contraceptive history, and experience with EC. METHODS: We collected data from all EC seekers (n=5383) at 1 US and 2 UK clinics (9/97-8/98). We also collected detailed information from women (n=2157) enrolling in an EC trial at the first 3 clinics and 2 additional UK sites (9/97-2/00). RESULTS: More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought EC. Fifty-eight percent of UK trial participants had used EC previously compared to 18% in the United States. Most participants in both groups used contraception regularly and reported needing EC because of condom breaks (67% and 56%). More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception (38% v 28%). US women reported more side effects at follow-up than UK women did (76% v 59%), although similar proportions would take EC again or recommend it. CONCLUSIONS: US and UK women in our trial experienced different side effects. Researchers should use caution when presenting aggregate results from international multicenter trials. In addition, readers should be aware that such aggregate results might mask important geographical differences. More research on experience with EC and barriers to contraceptive use in the United States is needed.
OBJECTIVES: to characterize emergency contraception (EC) users and clinical trial participants in the United States and the United Kingdom, comparing previous EC use and awareness, contraceptive history, and experience with EC. METHODS: We collected data from all EC seekers (n=5383) at 1 US and 2 UK clinics (9/97-8/98). We also collected detailed information from women (n=2157) enrolling in an EC trial at the first 3 clinics and 2 additional UK sites (9/97-2/00). RESULTS: More US (16%) than UK (4%) women reported additional acts (other than in the last 5 days) of unprotected sex during the cycle in which they sought EC. Fifty-eight percent of UK trial participants had used EC previously compared to 18% in the United States. Most participants in both groups used contraception regularly and reported needing EC because of condom breaks (67% and 56%). More UK than US participants used an ongoing method of contraception (38% v 28%). US women reported more side effects at follow-up than UK women did (76% v 59%), although similar proportions would take EC again or recommend it. CONCLUSIONS: US and UK women in our trial experienced different side effects. Researchers should use caution when presenting aggregate results from international multicenter trials. In addition, readers should be aware that such aggregate results might mask important geographical differences. More research on experience with EC and barriers to contraceptive use in the United States is needed.