Emma Pearce1, Kate Jolly1. 1. Murray Learning Centre, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emergency contraception has been available in pharmacies across England since 2001.There is a paucity of evidence describing those women accessing the service, particularly in rural locations, where pharmacies are integral to improving healthcare accessibility. METHODS: Routinely collected data from all pharmacy consultations for emergency contraception in Shropshire, England, were obtained and anonymized for the study period April 1, 2016 to January 31, 2019. Consultations were described by time, age of consultee, rationale for consultation, method dispensed (levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate), referral for copper intrauterine device fitting, chlamydia screening where appropriate and reason for choosing pharmacy setting. Repeat attenders were also described separately. RESULTS: 3499 consultations occurred during the study period; 39% were aged between 16-20 years, and 52% attended following unprotected sexual intercourse. Levonorgestrel was initially most prescribed, however ulipristal acetate overtook it in 2018. Onward referral for copper intrauterine device and age-appropriate chlamydia screening took place in 3% and 4% of the eligible populations respectively. Women overwhelmingly chose the pharmacy setting owing to its convenience. Repeat attenders tended to be younger than single attenders, but otherwise similar. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy-based emergency contraception is an important and well-utilized service in this rural location and continued funding and possible service expansion should be considered.
BACKGROUND: Emergency contraception has been available in pharmacies across England since 2001.There is a paucity of evidence describing those women accessing the service, particularly in rural locations, where pharmacies are integral to improving healthcare accessibility. METHODS: Routinely collected data from all pharmacy consultations for emergency contraception in Shropshire, England, were obtained and anonymized for the study period April 1, 2016 to January 31, 2019. Consultations were described by time, age of consultee, rationale for consultation, method dispensed (levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate), referral for copper intrauterine device fitting, chlamydia screening where appropriate and reason for choosing pharmacy setting. Repeat attenders were also described separately. RESULTS: 3499 consultations occurred during the study period; 39% were aged between 16-20 years, and 52% attended following unprotected sexual intercourse. Levonorgestrel was initially most prescribed, however ulipristal acetate overtook it in 2018. Onward referral for copper intrauterine device and age-appropriate chlamydia screening took place in 3% and 4% of the eligible populations respectively. Women overwhelmingly chose the pharmacy setting owing to its convenience. Repeat attenders tended to be younger than single attenders, but otherwise similar. CONCLUSION: Pharmacy-based emergency contraception is an important and well-utilized service in this rural location and continued funding and possible service expansion should be considered.
Women in England have been accessing over-the-counter oral emergency contraception in
pharmacy settings since 2001, increasing their opportunities to take positive steps
toward improved reproductive health.
Two types of oral emergency contraception are available in these pharmacies:
levonorgestrel and ulipristal acetate. Ulipristal acetate may be taken up to 120
hours following contraceptive failure or unprotected sexual intercourse, whereas
levonorgestrel must be taken within 72 hours.[2,3] Although the most effective
method of emergency contraception is insertion of the copper intrauterine device
within 120 hours, this requires specialist assessment and skills in a general
practice or sexual health setting and cannot be provided in pharmacies.[4,5] Despite many years of
availability, few studies have examined the characteristics of women accessing oral
emergency contraception from pharmacies, particularly those in more rural
locations.[1,6]Women living in rural English counties often face specific reproductive health
challenges related to service accessibility. Sexual and reproductive health clinics
are less likely to be located near to home, and often have shorter opening hours and
fewer staff than higher footfall, inner-city clinics. Rural English counties, in
comparison to more urban areas, also have poorer access to general practice
services, although maintain adequate access to community pharmacies; this effect is
independent of levels of social deprivation.[7,8] Transport links within and
between rural areas are often fragmented, and car ownership can be variable, with
young people in particular experiencing problems accessing services not located near
major public transport hubs or schools.
Assurance of confidential service provision also ranks higher for young
people accessing sexual and reproductive health services in rural locations compared
to their urban counterparts.
The above considerations impact not only upon the provision of emergency
contraception, but also on access to reliable ongoing contraceptive methods,
alongside the broader range of sexual and reproductive healthcare.[11,12]Current public health challenges, both monetary and service pressures, are negatively
impacting the provision of services such as emergency contraception access in a
variety of locations across England.
In rural counties, where extra challenges are placed in the way of accessing
sexual and reproductive healthcare, it is important to understand how services are
utilized and by whom, to make a case for retention and improvement of services.
Pharmacies are a key location to study as they may provide an alternative route of
delivering safe, effective healthcare in rural communities.The objective of this study is to describe all individuals requesting emergency
contraception consultations in pharmacies within Shropshire Local Authority
boundaries during the period April 1, 2016 to January 31, 2019.
Study Method
Data Source
This study utilizes routinely collected PharmOutcomes data from April 1, 2016 to
January 31, 2019.
All emergency contraception consultations recorded on the database during
this timeframe were included in the study. Any pharmacy with a pharmacist
qualified to provide emergency contraception and under contract with the Local
Authority may provide emergency contraception, without charge, to any person who
requests it and fits the clinical criteria. PharmOutcomes data must be provided
to the Local Authority to ensure adequate reimbursement for the service; data
are entered manually by the pharmacist based on self-report of the client at the
time of the consultation and reviewed by the Local Authority on a quarterly
basis. All fields in the database, excluding free text boxes for further comment
and ethnicity of attendee, are mandatory, ensuring receipt of a complete
dataset.Data were accessed in March 2019 by a Shropshire Local Authority data analyst,
anonymized by the study author, and stored securely.
Variables
Time: Consultations are described by financial quarter of attendance, beginning
from Quarter Two of 2016 (April to June). As data for the final quarter (Quarter
One of 2019) are incomplete, owing to timing of data extraction, all
consultations from this period are combined with Quarter Four of 2018, extending
this quarter from October 2018 to January 2019.Age: Age at consultation is displayed in five-year age bands; a separate 2-year
category (13-15 years) separates those below the age of consent and therefore
subject to Fraser competence assessment as part of the consultation. Subjects
were excluded from analyses by age if recorded age was ≤ 12 years or ≥ 60 years,
the assumption being that this data point was incorrect. For ease of display,
smaller age categories were combined when data were displayed graphically;
original results for individual categories can obtained on reasonable request
from the corresponding author.Consultation rationale: Four categories were recorded: unprotected sexual
intercourse, condom failure, failure of regular hormonal contraceptive method
(combined or progesterone-only pill) or vomiting following emergency
contraception usage within 3 hours.Type of emergency contraception prescribed: Recorded data detailed type of
emergency contraception dispensed (levonorgestrel or ulipristal acetate),
dosage, clinical comments (free text box) and reasons for not dispensing (free
text box).Onward referral for copper intrauterine device: This field is recorded as
“accepted” or “declined.” If accepted, a woman is given contact details of the
nearest service provider for copper intrauterine device fitting, and is also
offered oral emergency contraception, if clinically appropriate, to provide
cover in case of a delay in accessing the service.National Chlamydia Screening Programme: In England, everyone aged 15 to 24 years
should be offered a free chlamydia screening test in a pharmacy setting if
attending for emergency contraception or condom purchase/distribution as part of
the National Chlamydia Screening Programme.
Data can be entered as “provided,” “not provided” or “age inappropriate.”
Owing to the distribution of available data and predetermined age ranges,
chlamydia screening is examined in those aged 13-25 years in this study.Reason for choosing pharmacy setting: Following consultation, women are asked to
provide a reason for choosing the pharmacy setting, rather than other locations
or online services, for provision of emergency contraception. Six categories
were created within the database by the study author: Advice from healthcare
professional, advice from friends/family, convenience, advertising, assurance of
confidentiality or “other”.
Data Analysis
Data are displayed graphically and described using percentages. All subjects had
a unique anonymized patient number, allowing any consultation linked to a repeat
attender to be highlighted and analyzed independently. Repeat and single
attendees are compared using the Chi Squared test, with statistical significance
set at the 5% level. All analyses were undertaken using Microsoft Excel (Office
365 Version).
Ethical Approval and Patient and Public Involvement
Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Birmingham (ERN_19-0342).
Data is also covered under the Shropshire Local Authority GDPR statement, and
written permission to analyze and publish the data was obtained from the
Caldicott Guardian in Shropshire Local Authority in February 2019.This study was designed and completed following stakeholder feedback gathered for
a local needs assessment, in which the general public and service providers
highlighted anecdotal inequities in access to all forms of contraception within
Shropshire.
Results
Data were recorded on 3499 emergency contraception consultations during the study
period. 3099 individual women attended, and 321 women attended at least twice (721
consultations); this equates to 10% of all individual women accounting for 20.6% of
consultations. Consultations per quarter remained at 200-250 from Quarter 2, 2016 to
Quarter 1, 2017. In 2017 consultations rose to 330 to 350 per quarter, from Quarter
2, 2017 to Quarter 1, 2018 and then decreased for the remainder of the study period,
eventually returning to baseline (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Consultations for emergency contraception in Shropshire pharmacies per
quarter, April 2016 to January 2019.
Consultations for emergency contraception in Shropshire pharmacies per
quarter, April 2016 to January 2019.Just 2 attendees had recorded ages outside of 13 to 55 years. Sixty-six (1.9%)
consultations did not result in emergency contraception dispensing. Commonly
identified reasons included clinical suspicion of ectopic pregnancy, delayed
presentation, or incorrect presentation. Consultations were noted to be influenced
by age. Pharmacy services were most used by those aged 16-20 years, with 39% of all
subjects belonging to this group. Consultations decreased rapidly after the age of
20 (Figure 2). Of note, the
number of consultations by those aged 13-15 years was similar to the numbers aged
36-40 years and 41-45 years. No significant difference was seen by age group over
time. Just over two-thirds (67%) of the total study population were aged between
13-25 years. Of these, 4.7% received a chlamydia screening test during the study
period.
Figure 2.
Consultations by age group and time period, April 2016 to January 2019.
Consultations by age group and time period, April 2016 to January 2019.Slightly over half of consultations (52.6%) were for unprotected sexual intercourse;
38.4% were for condom failure and 8.8% were for failure of regular hormonal methods.
Just 2 consultations (0.02%) were prompted by vomiting following a previous
administration of emergency contraception earlier that same day. These trends varied
little when adjusted for age (Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Consultation rationale by age group, April 2016 to January 2019.
Consultation rationale by age group, April 2016 to January 2019.Across the whole study period, levonorgestrel was the more commonly supplied
emergency contraception method (78.5% consultations). Ulipristal acetate supply
remained stable throughout 2016/17, at between 5-10% of supplied items and then
increased markedly from the beginning of 2018. From April 2018 onward, ulipristal
acetate was the more commonly supplied emergency contraception method, dispensed in
over 50% of consultations per quarter (Figure 4). The effect of age on type of
emergency contraception was minimal, with around 20% of total consultations
resulting in ulipristal acetate supply; this was lowest in those aged 51-55 years
(10%) and highest in those aged 36-40 years (26.1%).
Figure 4.
Consultation outcome, April 2016 to January 2019.
Consultation outcome, April 2016 to January 2019.Onward referral for copper intrauterine device fitting was accepted in just 3% of all
consultations during the study period. Popularity was increased among those aged
31-35 years, with 4.2% of women accepting referral. No women aged 51-55 accepted
onward referral for copper intrauterine device fitting. Rates of copper intrauterine
device referral remained stable over the course of the study and followed a similar
pattern to that of consultation activity overall, with a referral low of 0.78% seen
in Quarter 2, 2016, and a high of 5.8% in Quarter 3, 2017. Of the 104 women referred
for copper intrauterine device insertion, 91% also received emergency contraception
at the time of consultation. The remainder refused on the basis that they did not
wish to use any hormonal method of pregnancy prevention.Convenience was the main reason for choosing the pharmacy over other healthcare
settings, as highlighted in 81.4% of consultations. 7.3% of consultations resulted
from a healthcare professional recommendation; this was commonly ascribed to a lack
of appointment capacity at a general practice/sexual health clinic, or because
alternate pharmacies had low stock or no qualified pharmacist on duty. 6.1% of
consultations followed recommendations from friends and family, and the remainder of
attendances were attributed to viewing advertising for the service (1.1%), feeling
reassured about the confidentiality (2%) or other reasons, such as having used that
pharmacy before for healthcare reasons (2.1%).Of the 3099 individual women accessing the pharmacy service during the study period,
321 accessed it on 2 or more occasions. The characteristics of these women are
highlighted below and compared to the characteristics of those women attending for a
single consultation during the study period (Table 1). A significant difference is seen
in the age profile of consultations, with 36.7% aged 16-20 in the single attender
group compared to 59.5% in the repeat attender group (p < 0.0001). No significant
differences were seen in consultations for unprotected sexual intercourse,
acceptance of copper intrauterine device referral or chlamydia screening in the
appropriate age group.
Table 1.
Comparison of Key Characteristics of Single Versus Repeat Consulters.
Characteristic
Single attendance
Repeat attendances
Number of women (% study population)
2778 (89.6%)
321 (10.4%)
Number of consultations (%)
2778 (79.4%)
721 (20.6%)
Consultations aged 16-20 (%)
1020 (36.7%)
429 (59.5%)
Percent unprotected sexual intercourse
52.2%
55.1%
Accepted copper intrauterine device referral (%)
2.7%
3.9%
Chlamydia screening population aged 13-25 (% total
population)
1751 (63%)
597 (83%)
Percent screened for chlamydia (eligible population only)
4.7%
5%
Comparison of Key Characteristics of Single Versus Repeat Consulters.
Discussion
Consultations for emergency contraception were commonplace in Shropshire pharmacies
between April 2016 and January 2019, and although consultations rose sharply during
2017-18, they returned to baseline by the end of the study period. Based upon 2018
Office for National Statistics figures for women aged 13-55 living within Shropshire
Local Authority boundaries, the crude consultation rate for emergency contraception
in this study cohort can be calculated at 16 per 1000 women.
Those aged 16-20 represent 39% of all consultations and 53% of consultations
across all age groups occurred following an episode of unprotected sexual
intercourse. A change in UK-wide prescribing guidance part way through the study
period led to ulipristal acetate overtaking levonorgestrel as the most dispensed
method of emergency contraception.
Chlamydia screening (in line with the National Chlamydia Screening Programme
recommendations) and onward referral for copper intrauterine device was low
throughout. 321 women, 10% of all those who consulted for emergency contraception,
returned at least twice during the study period. Aside from the age profile, no
significant differences between these groups were seen.This study is the first of its kind to examine patterns in pharmacy-dispensed
emergency contraception in a rural location following the change in sexual health
funding in England from National Health Service to Local Authority control. This is
also one of the first studies to demonstrate the impact of a national change in
guidance on the dispensing patterns of ulipristal acetate and levonorgestrel in the
pharmacy setting. It has highlighted several important issues, including the high
volume of women accessing the service, including those who access it multiple times
over a relatively short period of time, poor uptake of the most effective method of
emergency contraception and extremely low rates of opportunistic chlamydia
screening. By utilizing PharmOutcomes, a large amount of information on a specific
population of women has been collected and enables an in-depth examination of a
vital component of sexual health service provision that is likely to be replicated
in similar counties across England, and other similar health services.This study is somewhat limited by the data recording method. Changes were made to the
database by commissioners in February 2018, meaning that some data, such as previous
use of emergency contraception from any provider, ceased to be recorded and could
not be reasonably included in this study. Other key characteristics were either not
recorded (socioeconomic status, parity) or so poorly recorded they could not be
included as a variable in this study (ethnicity). The data is also manually entered
and relies upon accurate self-report from the women consulting the pharmacist
therefore the data accuracy is likely to vary somewhat depending on how personally
sensitive the variable in question is. Finally, by only looking at pharmacies,
emergency contraception provision from other service hubs (general practice,
accident and emergency departments, sexual health clinics, and, more recently,
online services) is not recorded and therefore this study certainly represents an
underestimate of the full need for emergency contraception of women residing within
the Shropshire Local Authority boundary.Some of the above findings substantiate previously published studies examining
emergency contraception provision in differing populations.[1,3,17] The age distribution and
pattern of repeat use of emergency contraception mirror that of general practice
populations seeking emergency contraception prior to the availability of emergency
contraception in pharmacies, indicating these women may have changed service provider.
This study confirms current beliefs around pharmacies providing much improved
access, and therefore convenience, over other settings from which emergency
contraception can be sought.[3,19] Systematic review evidence supports the finding that young
people utilize pharmacies for sexual and reproductive healthcare in large numbers as
they find it accessible and acceptable.
Trends in consultation rationale and repeat attendances have also changed
very little over time, with Lloyd and Gale noting similar patterns in their 2005
study examining emergency contraception dispensing in a rural part of Yorkshire.
Many studies have previously examined views around pharmacists providing
extra services, including chlamydia screening. Thomas et al found that pharmacists
believe offering chlamydia screening is an integral part of their job, but in order
to avoid offence they tend not to offer it to every eligible women, rather they
prefer to make judgements upon the necessity.
This undermines the opportunistic nature of the screening program and the
finding is likely to be replicated in our data.Work has already been undertaken investigating pharmacists’ and women’s views on
extending pharmacy-based sexual and reproductive healthcare, including provision of
ongoing hormonal contraception at the time of emergency contraception
access.[22,23] These small pilot studies provide promising results but require
further refinement, particularly in a rural setting where pharmacists often work
alone and may not have capacity to take on the level of work proposed. Economic
analysis of these projects in the context of changing public health funding is also
required to enable the case to be made for funding if they are found to be effective
and acceptable.
Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of providing a comprehensive emergency
contraception service in pharmacies in a rural location in England. It provides
evidence for local and national policy makers in sexual and reproductive healthcare
to support commissioning decisions and requests for further funding. It also
suggests that investing in pharmacies, as a location for sexual and reproductive
healthcare may be widely accepted as pharmacies are easily accessible, confidential,
and women are often directed to them from other healthcare providers.