Literature DB >> 27662799

Long-acting reversible contraceptive acceptability and unintended pregnancy among women presenting for short-acting methods: a randomized patient preference trial.

David Hubacher1, Hannah Spector2, Charles Monteith2, Pai-Lien Chen3, Catherine Hart3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Measures of contraceptive effectiveness combine technology and user-related factors. Observational studies show higher effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception compared with short-acting reversible contraception. Women who choose long-acting reversible contraception may differ in key ways from women who choose short-acting reversible contraception, and it may be these differences that are responsible for the high effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. Wider use of long-acting reversible contraception is recommended, but scientific evidence of acceptability and successful use is lacking in a population that typically opts for short-acting methods.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to reduce bias in measuring contraceptive effectiveness and better isolate the independent role that long-acting reversible contraception has in preventing unintended pregnancy relative to short-acting reversible contraception. STUDY
DESIGN: We conducted a partially randomized patient preference trial and recruited women aged 18-29 years who were seeking a short-acting method (pills or injectable). Participants who agreed to randomization were assigned to 1 of 2 categories: long-acting reversible contraception or short-acting reversible contraception. Women who declined randomization but agreed to follow-up in the observational cohort chose their preferred method. Under randomization, participants chose a specific method in the category and received it for free, whereas participants in the preference cohort paid for the contraception in their usual fashion. Participants were followed up prospectively to measure primary outcomes of method continuation and unintended pregnancy at 12 months. Kaplan-Meier techniques were used to estimate method continuation probabilities. Intent-to-treat principles were applied after method initiation for comparing incidence of unintended pregnancy. We also measured acceptability in terms of level of happiness with the products.
RESULTS: Of the 916 participants, 43% chose randomization and 57% chose the preference option. Complete loss to follow-up at 12 months was <2%. The 12-month method continuation probabilities were 63.3% (95% confidence interval, 58.9-67.3) (preference short-acting reversible contraception), 53.0% (95% confidence interval, 45.7-59.8) (randomized short-acting reversible contraception), and 77.8% (95% confidence interval, 71.0-83.2) (randomized long-acting reversible contraception) (P < .001 in the primary comparison involving randomized groups). The 12-month cumulative unintended pregnancy probabilities were 6.4% (95% confidence interval, 4.1-8.7) (preference short-acting reversible contraception), 7.7% (95% confidence interval, 3.3-12.1) (randomized short-acting reversible contraception), and 0.7% (95% confidence interval, 0.0-4.7) (randomized long-acting reversible contraception) (P = .01 when comparing randomized groups). In the secondary comparisons involving only short-acting reversible contraception users, the continuation probability was higher in the preference group compared with the randomized group (P = .04). However, the short-acting reversible contraception randomized group and short-acting reversible contraception preference group had statistically equivalent rates of unintended pregnancy (P = .77). Seventy-eight percent of randomized long-acting reversible contraception users were happy/neutral with their initial method, compared with 89% of randomized short-acting reversible contraception users (P < .05). However, among method continuers at 12 months, all groups were equally happy/neutral (>90%).
CONCLUSION: Even in a typical population of women who presented to initiate or continue short-acting reversible contraception, long-acting reversible contraception proved highly acceptable. One year after initiation, women randomized to long-acting reversible contraception had high continuation rates and consequently experienced superior protection from unintended pregnancy compared with women using short-acting reversible contraception; these findings are attributable to the initial technology and not underlying factors that often bias observational estimates of effectiveness. The similarly patterned experiences of the 2 short-acting reversible contraception cohorts provide a bridge of generalizability between the randomized group and usual-care preference group. Benefits of increased voluntary uptake of long-acting reversible contraception may extend to wider populations than previously thought.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  LARC; acceptability; adherence; contraceptive continuation; depot medroxyprogesterone acetate; discontinuation; intrauterine device; long-acting reversible contraception; oral contraceptives; subdermal contraceptive implant; unintended pregnancy

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27662799      PMCID: PMC5479328          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  23 in total

Review 1.  What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  S Hollis; F Campbell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-11

2.  Realizing Reproductive Health Equity Needs More Than Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC).

Authors:  Aline C Gubrium; Emily S Mann; Sonya Borrero; Christine Dehlendorf; Jessica Fields; Arline T Geronimus; Anu M Gómez; Lisa H Harris; Jenny A Higgins; Katrina Kimport; Kristin Luker; Zakiya Luna; Laura Mamo; Dorothy Roberts; Diana Romero; Gretchen Sisson
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline.

Authors:  I Mavranezouli
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 5.  Contraception for adolescents.

Authors:  Mary A Ott; Gina S Sucato
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 7.124

6.  Changes in out-of-pocket payments for contraception by privately insured women during implementation of the federal contraceptive coverage requirement.

Authors:  Lawrence B Finer; Adam Sonfield; Rachel K Jones
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 3.375

7.  The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods.

Authors:  J Trussell; J A Leveque; J D Koenig; R London; S Borden; J Henneberry; K D LaGuardia; F Stewart; T G Wilson; S Wysocki
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Coverage of certain preventive services under the Affordable Care Act. Final rules.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2013-07-02

9.  Celebration meets caution: LARC's boons, potential busts, and the benefits of a reproductive justice approach.

Authors:  Jenny A Higgins
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-02-10       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  Changes in out-of-pocket costs for hormonal IUDs after implementation of the Affordable Care Act: an analysis of insurance benefit inquiries.

Authors:  Jonathan M Bearak; Lawrence B Finer; Jenna Jerman; Megan L Kavanaugh
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  13 in total

1.  Effects of treatment, choice, and preference on health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Authors:  Quang A Le; Jason N Doctor; Lori A Zoellner; Norah C Feeny
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-03-14       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Not seeking yet trying long-acting reversible contraception: a 24-month randomized trial on continuation, unintended pregnancy and satisfaction.

Authors:  David Hubacher; Hannah Spector; Charles Monteith; Pai-Lien Chen
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Free Access to a Broad Contraceptive Method Mix and Women's Contraceptive Choice: Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa.

Authors:  Wei Chang; Katherine Tumlinson
Journal:  Stud Fam Plann       Date:  2021-02-02

4.  Comparison of pregnancy incidence among African women in a randomized trial of intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM), a copper intrauterine device (IUDs) or a levonorgestrel (LNG) implant for contraception.

Authors:  Maricianah Onono; Kavita Nanda; Kate B Heller; Doug Taylor; Irina Yacobson; Renee Heffron; Margaret Phiri Kasaro; Cheryl E Louw; Zelda Nhlabasti; Thesla Palanee-Phillips; Jenni Smit; Imelda Wakhungu; Peter B Gichangi; Nelly R Mugo; Charles Morrison; Jared M Baeten
Journal:  Contracept X       Date:  2020-05-28

5.  Partially randomised patient preference trials as an alternative design to randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analyses.

Authors:  Karin A Wasmann; Pieta Wijsman; Susan van Dieren; Willem Bemelman; Christianne Buskens
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Quality of websites about long-acting reversible contraception: a descriptive cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Catrin Eriksson; Matilda Skinstad; Susanne Georgsson; Tommy Carlsson
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 3.223

7.  Determinants of change in long-acting or permanent contraceptives use in Ethiopia; A multivariate decomposition analysis of data from the Ethiopian demographic and health survey.

Authors:  Gedefaw Abeje Fekadu; Akinyinka O Omigbodun; Olumuyiwa A Roberts; Alemayehu Worku Yalew
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Choices and services related to contraception in the Gaza strip, Palestine: perceptions of service users and providers.

Authors:  Bettina Böttcher; Mysoon Abu-El-Noor; Nasser Abu-El-Noor
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.809

9.  A systematic review on clinical effectiveness, side-effect profile and meta-analysis on continuation rate of etonogestrel contraceptive implant.

Authors:  Kusum V Moray; Himanshu Chaurasia; Oshima Sachin; Beena Joshi
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 3.223

Review 10.  Safety and Benefits of Contraceptives Implants: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Morena Luigia Rocca; Anna Rita Palumbo; Federica Visconti; Costantino Di Carlo
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.