M Bildircin1, N Hotun Sahin. 1. Koç Allianz Life and Pension Insurance Company, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The research was planned descriptively to define the knowledge, attitudes and practices of family-planning providers regarding emergency contraception. METHODS: The sample included 21 Maternal-Child Health/Family Planning Centers located in the European region of Istanbul, and the research was conducted with 41 family-planning providers employed in these facilities. RESULTS: All of the family-planning providers were aware of emergency contraception, 82.9% accurately defined emergency contraception, 61% stated that emergency contraception was legal, and 53.7% expressed that it could be employed in rape indications. All the family-planning providers (100%) cited combined oral contraceptives, 73.2% cited intrauterine devices, and 9.8% cited other methods (mifepristone, high-dose estrogen, menstrual regulation). Seventy-eight per cent of the family-planning providers stated that they had applied emergency contraception previously, while 53.7% gave limited support to emergency contraception. Two sample cases were given to family-planning providers to define their attitudes, to the first of which most of them were positive. All of them were positive towards the second sample. CONCLUSION: Family-planning providers, whose duty is to support women in critical family-planning and reproductive decisions using their experiences and skills, are supposed to have broad knowledge on the matter of emergency contraception.
OBJECTIVE: The research was planned descriptively to define the knowledge, attitudes and practices of family-planning providers regarding emergency contraception. METHODS: The sample included 21 Maternal-Child Health/Family Planning Centers located in the European region of Istanbul, and the research was conducted with 41 family-planning providers employed in these facilities. RESULTS: All of the family-planning providers were aware of emergency contraception, 82.9% accurately defined emergency contraception, 61% stated that emergency contraception was legal, and 53.7% expressed that it could be employed in rape indications. All the family-planning providers (100%) cited combined oral contraceptives, 73.2% cited intrauterine devices, and 9.8% cited other methods (mifepristone, high-dose estrogen, menstrual regulation). Seventy-eight per cent of the family-planning providers stated that they had applied emergency contraception previously, while 53.7% gave limited support to emergency contraception. Two sample cases were given to family-planning providers to define their attitudes, to the first of which most of them were positive. All of them were positive towards the second sample. CONCLUSION: Family-planning providers, whose duty is to support women in critical family-planning and reproductive decisions using their experiences and skills, are supposed to have broad knowledge on the matter of emergency contraception.