L Michie1, S T Cameron2, A Glasier3, Z E Chen4, D Milne5, S Wilson6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 5SU, United Kingdom; Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, 2A Chalmers Street, Edinburgh, EH3 9ES, United Kingdom. Electronic address: michieluc@yahoo.co.uk. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 5SU, United Kingdom; Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, 2A Chalmers Street, Edinburgh, EH3 9ES, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, 51 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh, EH16 5SU, United Kingdom; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom. 4. Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, 2A Chalmers Street, Edinburgh, EH3 9ES, United Kingdom. 5. Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, 2A Chalmers Street, Edinburgh, EH3 9ES, United Kingdom; Department of Public Health and Health Policy, NHS Lothian, Waverley Gate, 2-4 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3EG, United Kingdom. 6. Department of Public Health and Health Policy, NHS Lothian, Waverley Gate, 2-4 Waterloo Place, Edinburgh, EH1 3EG, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Community pharmacies in the United Kingdom (UK) provide sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services such as emergency contraception (EC), although there is scope for provision of additional services. We conducted a pilot study of pharmacy based interventions for initiating effective contraception after EC. By determining the views of participating women and pharmacists we aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to providing interventions from pharmacies routinely. STUDY DESIGN: In the pilot study, women presenting for levonorgestrel EC to community pharmacies, were provided with either standard care or one of two interventions: one packet of progestogen-only pills (POPs); or an invitation to present the empty EC packet to a local family planning clinic for contraception. A sample of women participating were asked to undergo a further interview. Operational difficulties with research in the community pharmacy were also documented by the research team. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 women, four from each arm of the pilot study, using a standardised topic guide. Pre- and post-study interviews were conducted with the pharmacists involved. RESULTS: All women welcomed the interventions indicating the benefit of having different options available. They also identified possible advantages and disadvantages of each intervention. All pharmacists were positive about their involvement in the study. Methodological problems included difficulty in retention of participating pharmacists, slow recruitment and failure to accurately complete study paperwork. CONCLUSIONS: Women welcomed the interventions offered. Pharmacists viewed their participation in the study positively. The problems encountered provide valuable feedback to inform the development larger scale studies of such interventions.
OBJECTIVES: Community pharmacies in the United Kingdom (UK) provide sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services such as emergency contraception (EC), although there is scope for provision of additional services. We conducted a pilot study of pharmacy based interventions for initiating effective contraception after EC. By determining the views of participating women and pharmacists we aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to providing interventions from pharmacies routinely. STUDY DESIGN: In the pilot study, women presenting for levonorgestrel EC to community pharmacies, were provided with either standard care or one of two interventions: one packet of progestogen-only pills (POPs); or an invitation to present the empty EC packet to a local family planning clinic for contraception. A sample of women participating were asked to undergo a further interview. Operational difficulties with research in the community pharmacy were also documented by the research team. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 women, four from each arm of the pilot study, using a standardised topic guide. Pre- and post-study interviews were conducted with the pharmacists involved. RESULTS: All women welcomed the interventions indicating the benefit of having different options available. They also identified possible advantages and disadvantages of each intervention. All pharmacists were positive about their involvement in the study. Methodological problems included difficulty in retention of participating pharmacists, slow recruitment and failure to accurately complete study paperwork. CONCLUSIONS:Women welcomed the interventions offered. Pharmacists viewed their participation in the study positively. The problems encountered provide valuable feedback to inform the development larger scale studies of such interventions.
Authors: Susan Patterson; Lisa McDaid; Kristina Saunders; Claire Battison; Anna Glasier; Andrew Radley; Judith M Stephenson; Anne Johnstone; Alessandra Morelli; Deirdre Sally; Nicola Stewart; Sharon Tracey Cameron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Sharon Tracey Cameron; Paula Baraitser; Anna Glasier; Lisa McDaid; John Norrie; Andrew Radley; Judith M Stephenson; James Trussell; Claire Battison; Sarah Cameron; Kathleen Cowle; Mark Forrest; Richard Gilson; Beatriz Goulao; Anne Johnstone; Alison McDonald; Alessandra Morelli; Susan Patterson; Deirdre Sally; Nicola Stewart Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sharon T Cameron; Anna Glasier; Lisa McDaid; Andrew Radley; Paula Baraitser; Judith Stephenson; Richard Gilson; Claire Battison; Kathleen Cowle; Mark Forrest; Beatriz Goulao; Anne Johnstone; Alessandra Morelli; Susan Patterson; Alison McDonald; Thenmalar Vadiveloo; John Norrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2020-11-14 Impact factor: 202.731