Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention (Review)

Background Emergency contraception can prevent pregnancy when taken after unprotected intercourse.Obtaining emergency contraception within the recommended time frame is difficult for many women. Advance provision could circumvent some obstacles to timely use. Objectives 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. Search strategy In November 2009, we searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, POPLINE,MEDLINE via PubMed, and a specialized emergency contraception article database. We also searched reference lists and contacted experts to identify additional published or unpublished trials. Selection criteria We included randomized controlled trials comparing advance provision and standard access (i.e., counseling whichmay ormay not have included information about emergency contraception, or provision of emergency contraception on request at a clinic or pharmacy). Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently abstracted data and assessed study quality. We entered and analyzed data using RevMan 5.0.23. Main results Eleven randomized controlled trials met our criteria for inclusion, representing 7695 patients in the United States, China, India and Sweden. Advance provision did not decrease pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.25 in studies for which we included twelve-month follow-up data; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.29 in a study with seven-month follow-up data; OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.20 in studies for which we included six-month follow-up data; OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.74 in a study with three-month follow-up data), despite reported increased use (single use: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.40; multiple use: OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.77 to 9.63) and faster use (weighted mean difference (WMD) -12.98 hours, 95% CI -16.66 to -9.31 hours). Advance provision did not lead to increased rates of sexually transmitted infections (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37), increased frequency of unprotected intercourse, or changes in contraceptive methods.Women who received emergency contraception in advance were equally likely to use condoms as other women. Authors’ conclusions 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.

Comparing the quality of three models of postabortion care in public hospitals in Mexico City

artículo publicado en la revista Int Fam Plan Perspect. 2003 Sep;29(3):112-20

Essential elements of postabortion care: origins, evolution and future directions

In this comment, we chronicle the development and expansion of a postabortion care model designed to promote interventions that address abortion-related public health concerns even when abortion laws and policies are restrictive. We review years of program experience with the original model, which led to the development of an expanded and updated model, Essential Elements of Postabortion Care (PAC). Implementing the model challenges global public health leaders, donors, technical assistance agencies and ministries of health to work with communities to ensure that all women who want to prevent or space pregnancies can obtain contraceptive services; that all women have access to services to manage complications from abortion, whether induced or spontaneous; and that all women receiving treatment also receive counseling and the reproductive and other health services they need at the treatment visit, as well as follow-up care and contraceptive resupply

Improving care of women at risk of unsafe abortion: implementing a risk-reduction model at the Uruguayan-Brazilian border

OBJECTIVE: To describe the initial stages of the implementation of a risk-reduction model designed by Iniciativas Sanitarias to shield women from unsafe abortion in a traditional community on the Uruguay-Brazil border. METHODS: This mixed-design study was conducted first between 22 and 26 March 2010, and then between 2 and 7 May 2011, in Rivera, Uruguay, to gather information from women seen at health centers, healthcare providers, and local policy makers before the project started and midway through the project. RESULTS: At baseline most women and providers considered abortion justifiable only on narrow grounds, yet favored the implementation of a risk-reduction model that would include preabortion as well as postabortion counseling, the former providing information on different abortion methods and their risks. By the midterm assessment, the counseling service had assisted 87 women with unwanted pregnancies. Of the 52 who came for a postabortion visit, 50 had self-administered misoprostol, with no complications. Women were highly satisfied with the counseling. At baseline, misoprostol seemed to be available from both pharmacists and informal sellers. At midterm, it was still available from informal vendors but pharmacists said they did not provide misoprostol. The risk-reduction initiative heightened public attention to the abortion issue but the controversy it generated did not seriously impede its implementation. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to implement the proposed risk-reduction model in a traditional community such as Rivera, not only in Uruguay but in any country irrespective of its abortion laws.