Direct access to emergency contraception through pharmacies and effect on unintended pregnancy and STIs: a randomized controlled trial. Advance supply of emergency contraception: a randomized trial in adolescent mothers. Advance supply of emergency contraception. effect on use and usual contraception--a randomized trial. The effects of advance provision of emergency contraception on adolescent women's sexual and contraceptive behaviors. Effect of advanced provision of emergency contraception on women's contraceptive behaviour: a randomized controlled trial. Advance provision of emergency contraceptive pills reduces treatment delay: a randomised controlled trial among Swedish teenage girls. Impact of increased access to emergency contraceptive pills: a randomized controlled trial. Advanced provision of emergency contraception to postnatal women in China makes no difference in abortion rates: a randomized controlled trial. A randomized controlled trial of the effect of advanced supply of emergency contraception in postpartum teens: a feasibility study. Computer-assisted provision of emergency contraception a randomized controlled trial.
It is estimated that half of unintended pregnancies could be averted if emergency contraception (EC) were easily accessible and used.
                To evaluate the effect of direct access to EC through pharmacies and advance provision on reproductive health outcomes.
                A randomized, single-blind, controlled trial (July 2001-June 2003) of 2117 women, ages 15 to 24 years, attending 4 California clinics providing family planning services, who were not desiring pregnancy, using long-term hormonal contraception or requesting EC.
                Participants were assigned to 1 of the following groups: (1) pharmacy access to EC; (2) advance provision of 3 packs of levonorgestrel EC; or (3) clinic access (control).
                Primary outcomes were use of EC, pregnancies, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) assessed at 6 months; secondary outcomes were changes in contraceptive and condom use and sexual behavior.
                Women in the pharmacy access group were no more likely to use EC (24.2%) than controls (21.0%) (P = .25). Women in the advance provision group (37.4%) were almost twice as likely to use EC than controls (21.0%) (P<.001) even though the frequency of unprotected intercourse was similar (39.8% vs 41.0%, respectively, P = .46). Only half (46.7%) of study participants who had unprotected intercourse used EC over the study period. Eight percent of participants became pregnant and 12% acquired an STI; compared with controls, women in the pharmacy access and advance provision groups did not experience a significant reduction in pregnancy rate (pharmacy access group: adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.64; P = .93; advance provision group: OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.66-1.84, P = .71) or increase in STIs (pharmacy access group: adjusted OR, 1.08, 95% CI, 0.71-1.63, P = .73; advance provision group: OR, 0.94, 95% CI, 0.62-1.44, P = .79). There were no differences in patterns of contraceptive or condom use or sexual behaviors by study group.
                While removing the requirement to go through pharmacists or clinics to obtain EC increases use, the public health impact may be negligible because of high rates of unprotected intercourse and relative underutilization of the method. Given that there is clear evidence that neither pharmacy access nor advance provision compromises contraceptive or sexual behavior, it seems unreasonable to restrict access to EC to clinics. To examine whether the advanced provision of emergency contraception (AEC) to parenting youth would increase emergency contraception (EC) utilization, and whether AEC would impact the rates of unprotected sex and contraception use.
                Subjects were randomized to receive either information about EC or information and an actual supply of AEC. Subjects were interviewed at baseline, 6 and 12-month follow-up.
                Urban non-medical case management office.
                160 adolescent mothers (ages 13 to 20) who were receiving case management services.
                Advance supply of emergency contraception.
                Emergency contraception use, sexual activity, unprotected intercourse, contraceptive methods and use.
                Parenting teens who received AEC were much more likely to have used it than the control group at the 6-month interview (83% vs. 11%) and the 12-month interview (64% vs. 17%). Teens in the AEC treatment group were more likely to have unprotected sex at the 12-month follow-up interview (69% vs. 45%). There was no difference in condom use between the groups at either the 6-month, or the 12-month follow-up interviews.
                Advance provision of emergency contraception in parenting teens increases the likelihood of its use, and does not affect the use of condoms, or hormonal methods of birth control. Parenting teens who receive AEC may be more likely to have unprotected sex. To evaluate whether advance provision of emergency contraception increases its use and/or adversely affects usual contraceptive practices.
                We performed a randomized controlled trial comparing advance provision of emergency contraception with usual care in 370 postpartum women from an inner-city public hospital. Participants were followed for 1 year; 85% were available for at least one follow-up session. All participants received routine contraceptive education. The intervention group received a supply of emergency contraception (eight oral contraceptive pills containing 0.15 mg of levonorgestrel and 30 microg of ethinyl estradiol) and a 5-minute educational session. We compared use of emergency contraception and changes in contraceptive behaviors between groups.
                Women provided with pills were four times as likely to have used emergency contraception as women in the control group over the course of the year (17% versus 4%; relative risk [RR] 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8, 9.0). Women were no more likely to have changed to a less effective method of birth control (30% versus 33%; RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.63, 1.3), or to be using contraception less consistently (18% versus 25%; RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.45, 1.2). About half of each group reported at least one episode of unprotected intercourse during follow-up, but women who received emergency contraception were six times as likely to have used it (25% versus 4%; RR 5.8; 95% CI 2.1, 16.4).
                Advance provision of emergency contraception significantly increased use without adversely affecting use of routine contraception. It is safe and appropriate to provide emergency contraception to all postpartum women before discharge from the hospital. Advance provision of emergency contraception (EC) may increase timely access and improve effectiveness, but the impact on adolescent sexual and contraceptive behaviors is not known.
                To determine whether adolescents given advance EC have higher sexual and contraceptive risk-taking behaviors compared to those obtaining it on an as-needed basis.
                Randomized trial conducted at urban, hospital-based adolescent clinic in Pittsburgh, PA, from June 1997 to June 2002.
                301 predominantly minority, low-income, sexually active adolescent women, age 15-20 years, not using long-acting contraception.
                Advance EC vs instruction on how to get emergency contraception.
                Self-reported unprotected intercourse and use of condoms, EC, and hormonal contraception ascertained by monthly 10-minute telephone interviews for 6 months post-enrollment. Reported timing of EC use after unprotected intercourse.
                At both 1- and 6-month followup interviews, there were no differences between advance EC and control groups in reported unprotected intercourse within the past month or at last intercourse. At 6 months, more advance EC participants reported condom use in the past month compared to control group participants (77% vs 62%, P=0.02), but not at last intercourse (advance EC 83% vs control 78%, P=0.34). There were no significant differences by group in hormonal contraception use reported by advance EC or control groups in the past month (44% vs 53%, P=0.19) or at last intercourse (48% vs 58%, P=0.20). At the first followup, the advance group reported nearly twice as much EC use as the control group (15% vs 8%, P=0.05) but not at the final followup (8% vs 6%, P=0.54). Advance EC group participants began their EC significantly sooner (11.4 hours vs 21.8 hours, P=0.005).
                Providing advance EC to adolescents is not associated with more unprotected intercourse or less condom or hormonal contraception use. In the first month after enrollment, adolescents provided with advance EC were nearly twice as likely to use it and began EC sooner, when it is known to be more effective. Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent pregnancy but is under-used. Advanced provision increases use but the effect on contraceptive behaviour varies.
                Women aged 18-45 years, using less effective contraceptives, were randomized to either advanced provision of three courses of EC (intervention) or to obtaining each course from clinic (control). EC use and contraceptive behaviour were monitored for 1 year.
                In all, 1030 women were recruited in 6 months. The mean+/-SD number of courses of EC used in intervention versus control group was 0.56+/-1.2 versus 0.20+/-0.6 (P<0.001). In the intervention group, 47% women aged <26 years used at least one course of EC compared with 23% of older women (P<0.001). The majority of women used condoms before (intervention 89%, control 91%) and during the study (89% for both groups). Consistency of contraceptive use was higher during the study (65 versus 60% of women in both groups) (P<0.001). There were 17 unplanned pregnancies, eight in the intervention group, six of whom did not use EC in the conception cycle.
                Advanced provision increases EC use especially among young women in Hong Kong. Contraceptive choice and consistency of use remains the same even among young women. To evaluate an intervention involving advance provision of emergency contraceptive pills (ECP) to Swedish teenage girls.
                Some 420 girls aged 15-19, requesting ECP at a local youth clinic were randomly assigned to intervention group (IG) (n=214) or control group (CG) (n=206). Both groups received ECP on request. The IG received one extra dose of ECP, condoms and an information leaflet regarding ECP and condom use. Main outcome measures were differences between IG and CG regarding ECP use, time span between unprotected intercourse and ECP intake, contraceptive use, and sexual risk taking. Questionnaires were completed at the initial visit, and the girls were followed up by structured telephone interviews 3 and 6 months later.
                At the 3-month follow-up, girls in the IG were almost twice as likely to have used ECP compared to girls in the CG (IG: 24.0%, CG: 13%, p=0.02), and they used it sooner after unprotected intercourse (mean time IG: 13.61 h, CG: 25.47 h, p=0.007). Significant differences persisted 6 months after the intervention (ECP use IG: 31%, CG: 19%, p=0.01; and mean time IG: 15.59 h, CG: 26.38 h, p=0.006). No significant differences were found in the use of regular hormonal contraceptives or condoms at either follow-up. About 40% of the girls in both groups had risked pregnancy during the follow-up period, but only half of these had used ECP.
                This intervention shortened the time interval from unprotected intercourse to pill intake without jeopardising contraceptive use and without increasing sexual risk taking. To assess how a strategy to maximize access to emergency contraceptive pills would affect rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.
                Sexually active women, 14-24 years old, were randomly assigned to two methods of access to emergency contraceptive pills: increased access (two packages of pills dispensed in advance with unlimited resupply at no charge) or standard access (pills dispensed when needed at usual charges). Participants were followed for 1 year to assess incidence of pregnancy, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomonas.
                The numbers of women enrolled in the increased and standard access groups were 746 and 744, respectively. More than 93% of participants completed a full year of follow-up. The incidence of pregnancy was similar in both groups (increased access group: 9.9/100 woman years, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.7-12.6; standard access group: 10.5/100 woman years, 95% CI 8.2-13.2). Aggregate rates of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and trichomonas were also similar in the two groups (increased access group: 6.9/100 woman years, 95% CI 5.1-9.1; standard access group: 7.6/100 woman years, 95% CI 5.7-9.9). The increased access group used emergency contraceptive pills substantially more often and sooner after coitus than the standard access group. No other differences were noted between groups in self-reported measures of sexual behavior and contraceptive use.
                This intensive strategy to enhance access to emergency contraceptive pills substantially increased use of the method and had no adverse impact on risk of sexually transmitted infections. However, it did not show benefit in decreasing pregnancy rates.
                II-1. Emergency contraception (EC) prevents pregnancy, and it has been suggested that widespread use could reduce abortion rates; however, the use is limited. Providing EC in advance of need increases use, but there is no direct evidence that it reduces unintended pregnancy. In a randomized controlled trial of 2000 women after childbirth in Shanghai, all women not wishing to use hormonal contraception or an intrauterine device (IUD) were given a supply of condoms. Those in the intervention group also received three courses of mifepristone 10 mg with instructions for use as EC. Follow-up was by telephone at 16, 32 and 52 weeks. Over 88% of women in both groups completed 1 year of follow-up. Women with a supply of EC were more than twice as likely to use it, and to use it more than once (p<.001 for both) than women without a supply. There was no difference in pregnancy rates at 1 year (38/832 vs. 32/817). EC was not used in 89% of conception cycles, as women did not recognize the need for it. Increased use of EC may not reduce abortion rates. The study was conducted to test the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled contraceptive trial in postpartum teens and to assess whether postpartum advanced supply of emergency contraception (EC) to teenaged mothers helps to prevent repeat pregnancies of close proximity.
                We performed a randomized controlled trial of 50 postpartum teens at an urban academic medical center. Participants in the intervention arm received routine postpartum contraceptive care and advanced supply of one pack of EC pills with unlimited supply thereafter upon request. The routine care arm (RCA) received routine postpartum contraceptive care. We asked open-ended questions about how we might maximize study retention and implemented the participants' requests in both arms.
                Our retention rate was 78%. There were three (13%) pregnancies out of 23 participants in the intervention arm and eight (30%) pregnancies out of 27 participants in the RCA. The risk of pregnancy occurring in the intervention arm was 0.57 times that of the RCA (95% CI 0.20-1.60; p=.23).
                A randomized controlled trial of postpartum teens to receive and not to receive advanced supply of EC is both feasible and necessary. Our study provides preliminary data to suggest that advanced supply of EC may help decrease repeat teen pregnancies. Emergency contraception (EC) can prevent unintended pregnancy. However, many women continue to lack information needed to use EC effectively and clinician time to counsel women about EC is limited.
                To evaluate whether computer-assisted provision of EC can increase knowledge and use of EC among women able to access EC without a prescription.
                We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which the intervention group received a 15-minute computerized educational session and 1 pack of EC. The control group received education about periconception folate supplementation, but no information about EC. Participants were contacted 7 months after enrollment.
                Four hundred forty-six women recruited from 2 urgent care clinics in San Francisco in 2005.
                Knowledge of EC, use of EC, and self-reported pregnancy.
                At follow-up, women in the intervention group answered an average of 2 more questions about EC correctly than they had at baseline, whereas women in the control group answered only 1 more item correctly (2.0 vs 1.2, p < .001). There was a trend toward more use of EC during the study period in the intervention group (10% vs 4% of women followed, p = .06; 6% vs 3%, p = .09 of women enrolled). Fewer women in the intervention group were pregnant at the time of follow-up (0.8% vs 6.5%, p = .01 of women followed; 0.5% vs 4.0%, p = .01 of women enrolled).
                Computer-assisted provision of EC in urgent care waiting areas increased knowledge of EC in a state where EC had been available without a prescription for 3 years.
Advance provision of emergency contraception did not reduce pregnancy rates when compared to conventional provision. Results from primary analyses suggest that advance provision does not negatively impact sexual and reproductive health behaviors and outcomes. Women should have easy access to emergency contraception, because it can decrease the chance of pregnancy. However, the interventions tested thus far have not reduced overall pregnancy rates in the populations studied.