Does Immediate Access to Birth Control Help Prevent Pregnancy? A Comparison of Onsite Provision Versus Off Campus Referral for Contraception at Two School-Based Clinics

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of different policies on access to hormonal contraception and pregnancy rates at two high school-based clinics. METHODS: Two clinics in high schools (Schools A and B), located in a large urban district in the southwest US, provide primary medical care to enrolled students with parental consent; the majority of whom have no health insurance coverage. The hormonal contraceptive dispensing policy of at School clinic A involves providing barrier, hormonal and emergency contraceptive services on site. School clinic B uses a referral policy that directs students to obtain contraception at an off-campus affiliated family planning clinic. Baseline data (age, race and history of prior pregnancy) on female students seeking hormonal contraception at the two clinics between 9/2008-12/2009 were extracted from an electronic administrative database (AHLERS Integrated System). Data on birth control use and pregnancy tests for each student was then tracked electronically through 3/31/2010. The outcomes measures were accessing hormonal contraception and positive pregnancy tests at any point during or after birth control use were started through 12/2009. The appointment keeping rate for contraceptive services and the overall pregnancy rates were compared between the two schools. In addition the pregnancy rates were compared between the two schools for students with and without a prior history of pregnancy. RESULTS: School clinic A: 79 students sought hormonal contraception; mean age 17.5 years; 68% were > 18 years; 77% were Hispanic; and 20% reported prior pregnancy. The mean duration of the observation period was 13 months (4-19 months). All 79 students received hormonal contraception (65% pill and 35% long acting progestin injection) onsite. During the observation period, the overall pregnancy rate was 6% (5/79); 4.7% (3/63) among students with no prior pregnancy. School clinic B: 40 students sought hormonal contraception; mean age 17.5 years; 52% > 18 years; 88 % were Hispanic; and 7.5% reported prior pregnancy. All 40 students were referred to the affiliated clinic. The mean duration of the observation period was 11.9 months (4-19 months). 50% (20) kept their appointment. Pills were dispensed to 85% (17/20) and 15% (3/20) received long acting progestin injection. The overall pregnancy rate was 20% (8/40); 21.6% (8/37) among students with no prior pregnancy. A significantly higher frequency of students seeking hormonal contraception kept their initial appointment for birth control at the school dispensing onsite contraception compared to the school with a referral policy for contraception (p<0.05). The pregnancy rate was significantly higher for the school with a referral policy for contraception compared to the school with onsite contraceptive services (p< 0.05). The pregnancy rate was also significantly higher for students without a prior history of pregnancy in the school with a referral policy for contraception (21.6%) versus the school with onsite contraceptive services (4.7%) (p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study showed that School clinic B with a referral policy had a lower appointment keeping rate for contraceptive services and a higher pregnancy rate than School clinic A with on-site contraceptive services. An on-site dispensing policy for hormonal contraceptives at high school-based health clinics may be a convenient and effective approach to prevent unintended first and repeat pregnancies among adolescents who seek hormonal contraception. This study has strong implications for reproductive health policy, especially as directed toward high-risk teenage populations.

School Based Health Centers Should Provide Contraception to Teens

Many students are sexually active, and hundreds of thousands experience pregnancy every year. Smith, Novello, and Chacko’s research found that students at a school where contraception is available on site were more likely to access contraception and less likely to experience pregnancy – illustrating the power of school based health centers (SBHCs) to help students take responsibility and protect their own futures. Yet the majority of SBHCs are prohibited from dispensing contraception. To remove barriers in access to contraception and help reduce teen pregnany, policymakers, school administrators, and health providers should ensure that SBHCs follow youth-friendly protocols and provide confidential access to contraception.

Lessons learned from nationwide vaccine programs: Comparing human papillomavirus, poliomyelitis vaccine, and swine flu

This assessment compares the human papillomavirus (HPV) nationwide vaccine to the poliomyelitis vaccine and the swine flu vaccine with the purpose of finding parallels and lessons in the controversies faced by the development and use of the vaccines. There are a number of great barriers that are facing the HPV vaccine to date. These controversies lie in dealing with the risk involved in taking the vaccine, how much control the government should have in administering the vaccine, how to communicate the risk to the public, and the cost-effectiveness of the vaccine versus treatment for cervical cancer. The lessons for the HPV vaccine that were learned after comparison and assessment of the controversies were: (1) plan ahead of time on how to inform the public if a risk develops from taking the HPV vaccination and it may be better to provide some information while the event is occurring, always being as truthful as possible, and later dispensing more information once all of the facts are known, (2) the human papillomavirus is not something that will become a pandemic in a short amount of time because the virus takes a long time to develop into cervical cancer, so if a major risk begins to show after continuing to develop and administer the vaccine for an amount of time, it may be better to take it off the market for a while and possibly reconfigure it to help eliminate some of the risks, (3) if side reactions and risks do develop and the government assumes liability for these reactions, the cost-effectiveness can be greatly affected, so it is important to be constantly checking to see if all the monetary and health benefits of the vaccine are outweighing any of the negative costs of the vaccine, and lastly, (4) the public must feel that every aspect of the vaccine, both good and bad, has been thought over and the benefits of taking the vaccine prevail over the negatives and that politics and commercial interests have nothing to do with the production and administration of the vaccine. ^