Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 2007;110:1379-1388
© 2007 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Polis, C. B.
Right arrow Articles by Grimes, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Polis, C. B.
Right arrow Articles by Grimes, D. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Contraception
Right arrow Epidemiology/public health
Right arrow Meta-analysis

REVIEW

Advance Provision of Emergency Contraception for Pregnancy Prevention

A Meta-Analysis

Chelsea B. Polis1, Kate Schaffer, MSc2, Kelly Blanchard, MS3, Anna Glasier, MD, FRCOG4, Cynthia C. Harper, PhD5 and David A. Grimes, MD6

From the 1Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland; 2Pathfinder International, Watertown, Massachusetts; 3Ibis Reproductive Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 4Family Planning and Well Women Services, Lothian Primary Care NHS Trust, Edinburgh Scotland; 5Bixby Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California; and 6Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: Advance provision of emergency contraception can circumvent some obstacles to timely use. We performed a meta-analysis to summarize randomized controlled trials evaluating advance provision of emergency contraception to explore effects on pregnancy rates, sexually transmitted infections, and sexual and contraceptive behaviors.

DATA SOURCES: In August 2006, we searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, POPLINE, MEDLINE, a specialized emergency contraception article database, and contacted experts to identify published or unpublished trials.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials comparing advance provision to standard access, defined as any of the following: counseling (with or without information about emergency contraception) or provision of emergency contraception on request at a clinic or pharmacy.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION AND RESULTS: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. We performed a meta-analysis using Review Manager software. Eight randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria, representing 6,389 patients in the United States, China, and India. Advance provision did not decrease pregnancy rates, despite increased use (single use, odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72–3.70; multiple use: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.77–9.63) and faster use (weighted mean difference –14.6 hours, 95% CI –16.77 to –12.4 hours). Advance provision did not increase rates of sexually transmitted infections (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.73–1.34), unprotected intercourse, or changes in contraceptive methods. Women who received emergency contraception in advance were as likely to use condoms as other women.

CONCLUSION: Advance provision of emergency contraception did not reduce pregnancy rates and did not negatively affect sexual and reproductive health behaviors and outcomes compared with conventional provision.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.