IntroductionEmergency contraception must be followed by the use of an effective method of contraception in order to reduce future risk of unintended pregnancies. Provision of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is highly effective in this regard. The aim of our study was to compare use of an effective method of contraception 6 months following insertion of a copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) or intake of ulipristal acetate (UPA) for emergency contraception (EC). Material and methodsWomen (n = 79) presenting with need for EC at an outpatient midwifery clinic chose either Cu-IUD or UPA according to preference. Follow up was 3 and 6 months later through telephone interviews. Primary outcome was use of an effective contraceptive method at the 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes included use of an effective contraceptive method at 3 months follow up and acceptability of Cu-IUD. ResultsA total of 30/36 (83.3%) women who opted for Cu-IUD for EC used an effective contraceptive method 6 months after their first visit compared with 18/31 (58.1%) women who opted for UPA (p = 0.03). In the Cu-IUD group 28/36 (77.8%) were still using Cu-IUD at 6 months and 31/36 (86%) stated that they would recommend the Cu-IUD to others as an EC method. ConclusionSignificantly more women who chose Cu-IUD for EC used an effective method for contraception at the 6-month follow up. The results of this study support increased use of Cu-IUDs for EC.