Search

ObjectiveTo explore the effect on ovarian activity and ovulation of 28 days of correct daily use of a progestogen-only pill containing norgestrel 0.075 mg.Study designWe performed a prospective, randomized, crossover study at 2 US sites, recruiting healthy women of reproductive age to use norgestrel 0.075 mg daily for three 28-day treatment cycles. We monitored ovarian activity every 3 to 4 days with reproductive hormone measurements and ovarian ultrasonography. Participants recorded pill use in daily diaries. An adjudication committee independent of the research sites assessed ovarian activity using a modified Hoogland score combining hormone concentrations and follicle diameter and appearance (quiescence 1-3, ovarian activity without ovulation 4-5, and ovulatory/postovulatory 6-7).ResultsWe report here the findings of the initial 28-day treatment cycle in which 51 of 52 recruited participants provided data sufficient for analysis. Two thirds of subjects had no evidence of ovulation (34/51, 66.6%); eight of these (15.7%) had quiescent ovaries (follicle 13 mm diameter) without ovulation. Seventeen participants ovulated, of whom 12 (23.5%) had a normal, and 5 (9.8%) an abnormal luteal phase. Persistent ovarian follicles were common among women who had ovarian activity without ovulation, 17 of 26 participants (65.4%) had a large follicle which persisted beyond 28 days.ConclusionDuring 28 days of exposure to a norgestrel 0.075 mg progestogen-only pill, most women had no evidence of ovulation.ImplicationsOvulation inhibition and follicle growth disturbance are important in the mechanism of action of a progestogen-only pill containing norgestrel 0.075 mg.

Objectives : To review published data on the effectiveness of a progestogen-only pill containing norgestrel 75 µg/day which should be under consideration by the FDA in 2022 for sale over the counter in the US. Study design : A literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE REVIEWS using specified search terms and adding related cross-references. Results : We identified a total of thirteen relevant studies of women using norgestrel 75 µg/day. None were reported with the rigor characteristic of trial reporting today. Nevertheless, six studies provided data on 3,144 women who were not breastfeeding, followed for a total of 35,319 months and reported a range of overall failure rates during typical use of norgestrel 75 µg/day from 0 to 2.4/hundred woman-years giving an aggregate Pearl Index of 2.2. Seven additional studies involved 5,258 women some of whom were breastfeeding for at least part of the period of follow-up. More than 36,673 months of use yielded 12-month life table cumulative pregnancy rates for norgestrel 75 µg/day ranging from zero to 3.4. We were unable to calculate an aggregate Pearl Index for the breastfeeding studies because of lack of crucial data. Conclusions : The data support that norgestrel 75 µg/day is highly effective in clinical use, with similar estimates of failure in breastfeeding and non-breastfeeding women, providing support to the case for approval without the need to see a healthcare provider.

ObjectivesTo develop a model to estimate the possible impact of use of an over-the-counter (OTC) progestin-only pill (POP) on the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States.Study designUsing typical use failure rates (7% for POPs), we compared the expected number of unintended pregnancies for two theoretical cohorts of 100,000 women: one which purchased and used an OTC POP exclusively for contraception, the other using contraceptive methods at proportions obtained from an actual-use clinical trial simulating OTC use of norgestrel 0.075 mg (including 35% using no method and only 19% using hormonal contraception or long-acting contraceptives). Sensitivity analyses were conducted using alternative model inputs such as different failure rates for OTC POPs and varied alternative contraceptive method mix.ResultsAn estimated 37,624 unintended pregnancies would occur annually if 100,000 women continued their usual contraceptive method as used at baseline in the actual use trial. This would be reduced by 81% to 7,000 pregnancies with the exclusive use of an OTC POP – a net reduction of 30,624 unintended pregnancies annually. While the number of unintended pregnancies prevented varied as the model parameters were modified (ranging from 1,461 to 34,124), a net benefit of OTC POP use was observed over a wide range of input values.ConclusionsUsing data from a real-world contraception user profile, our model suggests that use of an OTC POP could reduce the overall number of unintended pregnancies in the United States. This conclusion remains true across a wide range of modeled scenarios.ImplicationsThe estimates suggested by this model are supportive of an OTC switch for a POP.

ObjectivesTo measure adherence over six months of progestin-only pill (POP) use.Study DesignProspective observational cohort study measuring adherence to daily dosing and timing of dose in patients prescribed a POP, with up to six months of follow-up, conducted from January to October 2020. A pharmacy benefit manager identified potential participants with a newly prescribed POP and extended an invitation to participate. We enrolled qualified respondents by telephone, trained them to use an electronic diary to report daily whether they had taken their POP and at what time. We followed participants for up to six months. We calculated adherence to daily pill taking as the proportion of evaluable days in which a participant took a POP, and the proportion of participants reporting ≥85% adherence. We calculated adherence to same time each day as the proportion of doses taken no later than three hours after the previous dose time of day.ResultsThe user population comprised 199 participants, 154 (77.4%) of whom completed six months of follow-up. The majority (n = 170, 85.4%) were taking norethindrone. Norethindrone users reported POP intake on 22,327 (96.4%) of 23,156 evaluable days, with 155 (91.2%) participants reporting ≥85% adherence; less than half (n = 73, 42.9%) reported 100% adherence. Participants reported adherence to same time each day on 21,698 of 22,157 (97.9%) evaluable days.ConclusionsAmong participants taking a prescribed POP, participants demonstrated high adherence for daily pill taking and the same time of day, though the majority were not 100% adherent.ImplicationsThis study reports data specific to adherence among those taking a progestin-only pill (POP) in the prescription setting. Clinicians who counsel patients about POP use should be aware that majority of patients were not 100% adherent, although most report ≥85% adherence.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cervical mucus effects of a norgestrel 0.075 mg progestin-only contraceptive pill over a 28-day cycle.Study designWe recruited persons ages 18 to 35 with normal cycles at 2 US academic medical centers. Participants took norgestrel 0.075 mg daily for 28 days at the same time (within a 3 hour window) daily, recorded through a text-message based e-diary. We extracted cervical mucus using a standardized aspiration technique on the day of pill initiation and then at least every 3 to 4 days over the cycle. We monitored subjects for follicular activity with transvaginal ultrasound examination and blood sampling for ovarian hormones and gonadotropins at each visit. We assessed cervical mucus scoring using a 4-category/12-point modified Insler scale (score ≥9 [favoring fertility], 5-8 [intermediate], and ≤4 [unfavorable to fertility]). We stratified cervical mucus scores by serum estradiol levels and ovulatory status based on a modified Hoogland score.ResultsExcluding enrollment, we collected and evaluated 413 mucus samples from 51 participants. Participants had a median mucus score of 0 (Interquartile Range 0, 2); most had scores ≤4 (samples=385, 93%) and none had a score ≥9 favoring fertility. Seventeen (33%) participants ovulated, of which 14 (82%) had unfavorable mucus scores (≤4) at the time of ovulation and 3 (18%) had intermediate scores (5-8).ConclusionsNorgestrel 0.075 mg daily prevents mucus changes that favor fertility, even during ovulatory cycles.ImplicationsDaily administration of norgestrel 0.075 mg over an initial 28-day cycle did not result in fertile cervical mucus. Although approximately one-third of users ovulated in this first cycle of pill use, contraceptive efficacy may be maintained by mucus effects.

ObjectivesTo estimate the effects on cervical mucus, ovarian activity and theoretical contraceptive protection of a 6-hour delay and of missing one norgestrel 0.075 mg progestogen-only pill.Study designIn a prospective, two-site, randomized, crossover study, healthy women aged 18 to 35 with BMI

BackgroundImmediate postpartum intrauterine device (PPIUD) insertion is safe and effective but largely unavailable in Europe. Data on maternity staff views on the provision and implementation of PPIUD services are limited. The objective of this qualitative evaluation was to explore the views and experiences of obstetricians and midwives providing PPIUD within a UK maternity setting, in order to identify areas for improvement and inform service provision in other areas.MethodsQualitative health services research within two public maternity hospitals in Lothian (Edinburgh and surrounding region), UK. Interviews with 30 maternity staff (obstetricians n=8; midwives n=22) involved in PPIUD provision. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsMaternity staff were positive about the benefits of PPIUD for women. Midwives reported initial concerns about PPIUD safety, and the impact on workload; these views shifted following training, and as PPIUD was embedded into practice. Having a large pool of PPIUD-trained staff was identified as an important factor in successful service implementation. Having PPIUD ‘champions’ was important to address staff concerns, encourage training uptake, and advocate for the service to ensure continued resourcing.ConclusionsPPIUD in maternity services can help address unmet need for effective contraception in the immediate postpartum period. We emphasise the importance of widespread engagement around PPIUD among all healthcare professionals involved in the care of women, to ensure staff are informed and supported. Clinical champions and leaders play a key role in amplifying the benefits of PPIUD, and advancing organisational learning.

Objective Among combined oral contraception (COC) users, to determine the effect on ovarian activity and ovulation of waiting five days before restarting COC, versus restarting immediately, having taken ulipristal acetate 30 mg (UPA, the dose used for emergency contraception) after missing three consecutive COC pills. Study design Women already using COC were enrolled for two cycles of COC use (21/7 regimen). In cycle 2, all women omitted COC pills for three consecutive days (days 5,6,7), and on day 8 took UPA 30 mg. They were randomized either to restart their COC pills that same day (immediate restart) or to wait five days (delayed restart). Transvaginal ultrasound, and blood sampling for estradiol and progesterone were undertaken on days 4,8,11,13,15,18,22 and 26. A modified Hoogland score was used to quantify ovarian activity/ovulation and to assess whether luteal phase progesterone concentrations were sufficiently ‘adequate’ to have conferred a theoretical risk of pregnancy. Results No one ovulated with risk of pregnancy during the five days following UPA. Among 26 women with immediate restart, none ovulated with a theoretical risk of pregnancy at any time in the cycle. Four of 23 women (17.4% CI [5.0; 38.8]) with delayed restart ovulated with theoretical risk of pregnancy before the end of the cycle. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.042). Conclusion Women who delay restarting COC for five days after taking UPA 30 mg are at much greater risk of ovulation, and therefore theoretically of pregnancy, than if they restart their COC on the same day as taking UPA. Current recommendations should be revisited. Implications Women who take UPA-EC after having missed combined oral contraceptive pills are advised to wait five days before restarting the COC. This delay puts them at risk of ovulation and, if intercourse occurs, theoretically therefore of pregnancy. Women who restart their COC pills immediately are much less likely to ovulate. The label for UPA-EC and clinical guidelines on using EC after missed pills should be revisited.

ObjectiveTo present process evaluation results from the Bridge-it Study, a pragmatic cluster randomised cross-over trial to improve effective contraception uptake through provision of the progestogen only pill (POP) plus sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinic rapid-access to women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (EC).Research design and methodsA multimethod process evaluation was conducted to assess intervention implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors. Data were gathered from screening logs (n=599), observations of pharmacist training, analysis of data from 4-month follow-up questionnaires (n=406), monitoring of contemporaneous events and qualitative interviews with 22 pharmacists, 5 SRH clinical staff and 36 study participants in three participating UK sites in Lothian, Tayside and London.ResultsThe intervention was largely delivered as intended and was acceptable. Pharmacists’, SRH clinical staff and participants’ accounts highlighted that providing a supply of POP with EC from the pharmacy as routine practice may have positive impacts on contraceptive practices in the short term, and potentially longer term. Key mechanisms of change included ease of access, increased awareness of contraception and services, and greater motivation and perceptions of self-efficacy. Few participants took up the offer to attend an SRH service (rapid-access component), and existing barriers within the SRH context were apparent (eg, lack of staff). Participant accounts highlight persistent barriers to accessing and using routine effective contraception remain.ConclusionsImplementation appeared to be acceptable and feasible, highlighting the potential for provision of POP within EC consultations as routine practice in community pharmacies. However, lack of engagement with the rapid access component of the intervention and existing barriers within the SRH context suggest that signposting to SRH services may be sufficient. Wider implementation should consider ways to address key implementation challenges to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to overcome persistent barriers to accessing and using effective contraception.Trial registration numberISRCTN70616901.

Although there is good evidence that the progestogen-only injectable is associated with a decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), there is a lack of data pertaining to lower dose progestogen-only methods.1 2 The recent guidance from the Clinical Effectiveness Unit of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare advises that current evidence is too limited to confirm or exclude an association between implant use and a reduction in BMD.3 Amenorrhoea results from suppression of ovarian follicle growth and of oestrogen secretion.4 It is therefore possible that amenorrhoeic women using any systemic progestogen-only contraception that suppresses ovarian activity may be more at …

INTRODUCTION: Expanding access to postpartum intrauterine contraception (PPIUC) can reduce unintended pregnancies and short inter-pregnancy intervals, however provision across Europe is limited. Our aim was to the determine the feasibility, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction of providing immediate PPIUC after vaginal birth using a health services research model.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Phased introduction of PPIUC across two Lothian maternity hospitals. All women intending vaginal birth during the study period without a contraindication to use of the method were eligible to receive PPIUC. Midwives and obstetric doctors were trained in vaginal PPIUC insertion using Kelly forceps. Women received information antenatally and had PPIUC insertion of either a levonorgestrel intrauterine system or copper intrauterine device within 48 hours of vaginal birth. Follow-up was conducted in-person at six weeks' postpartum and by telephone at 3, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes were: uptake, complications (infection, uterine perforation), expulsion and patient satisfaction at 6 weeks; and method of continuation up to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included hazard ratio for expulsion adjusted for demographic and insertion-related variables.RESULTS: Uptake of PPIUC was 4.6% of all vaginal births. 465/447 (96.1%) of those requesting PPIUC successfully received it and most chose levonorgestrel intrauterine system (73%). At six weeks postpartum, the infection rate was 0.8%, there were no perforations and 98.3% of women said they would recommend the service. The complete expulsion rate was 29.8% (n=113) and most had symptoms (n=79). Of the additional 121 devices removed, 118 were due to partial expulsion. The rate of complete/partial expulsion was higher for insertions by midwives compared to doctors. The reinsertion rate after expulsion/removal was 87.6% and method continuation at 12 months was 79.6%.CONCLUSIONS: Routine PPIUC at vaginal birth is feasible. Complications were extremely rare. High expulsion rates may be observed in early stages of service introduction and with inexperienced providers. Reinsertion and therefore longer-term continuation rates of intrauterine contraception were very high. In settings with low rates of attendance for interval postpartum intrauterine contraception insertion, PPIUC could be a useful intervention to prevent unintended and closely-spaced pregnancies.

Background Ulipristal acetate (UPA) 30 mg (ella®, HRA-Pharma, Paris, France) acts as an emergency contraceptive (EC) by delaying ovulation. Because it is a selective progesterone receptor modulator, an additional effect on interfering with implantation has been suggested. Objective This review discusses the evidence for, and against, an anti-implantation effect of UPA-EC. Sources of evidence Primary research on the effect of UPA, at a relevant dose, on endometrium, implantation, efficacy and pregnancy outcome. Results UPA-EC does not appear to have a direct effect on the embryo. Changes in endometrial histology are small and not consistent, varying among studies. While UPA-EC affects the profile of gene expression in human endometrium, the findings vary between studies, and it is not clear that these changes affect endometrial receptivity or prevent implantation. UPA at pharmacological concentrations does not appear to have any inhibitory effect on embryo attachment in in vitro systems of human endometrium. UPA-EC is not more effective at preventing pregnancy than chance alone if used after ovulation and does not increase miscarriage rates. Conclusions An anti-implantation effect of UPA is highly unlikely at the dose used for EC. Maintaining the warning on the FDA-approved label that “it may also work by preventing implantation to the uterus” might deter some women from using EC, leaving them no option to prevent unwanted pregnancy after unprotected sexual intercourse.

Infertility represents a very peculiar area of medicine. Contrary to other areas, where signs and symptoms lead to a diagnosis, which in turn leads to a specific treatment, in reproduction the lack of signs and symptoms for more than 12 months suggests the diagnosis of ‘unexplained subfertility’, and if this condition has lasted for some years, couples qualify for IVF. Diagnosis and treatments can extend over long periods of time (even years) and the accuracy of the diagnostic armamentarium is not optimal. Uncertainty about diagnosis and the need for significant perseverance is demanding on both couples and physicians, and actually constitute a very favourable situation for overdiagnosis (‘unexplained subfertility’) and overtreatment (IVF) on one hand, and, on the other, it may also affect compliance with treatments. To improve our capacity to properly handle this challenging situation, increased attention should be given to the duration of pregnancy seeking. Initiating treatments earlier in older women is unwise because this population has a lower fecundity and, therefore, duration of pregnancy seeking is even more important to achieve a reliable diagnosis of infertility. Moreover, if the infertility work-up is unremarkable, duration of pregnancy seeking should be extended up to more than 2 years prior to making a diagnosis of unexplained infertility regardless of age. An adequate period of pregnancy seeking is also required for couples who are diagnosed with conditions that can interfere with fertility to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Indeed, most causes of infertility will reduce but not impair natural conception. Within this sometimes long-term management, physicians should also pay attention to detrimental life habits in order to optimize the chances of both natural and assisted reproduction technology -mediated pregnancy. Even if interventional studies are not conclusive, it is advisable to address the problems of obesity and smoking. Focussing on frequency of sexual intercourse may be also beneficial for natural conception. Finally, there is the need for improving our capacity to handle compliance. Providing information on the importance of persevering at the start of treatment, promoting shared decision-making and tackling patient, clinic and treatment causes of drop-out can all improve the overall chances of parenthood. Thus, we plead for a wiser and more pragmatic approach to infertility, paying more attention to these neglected, but in our opinion essential, aspects of infertility care.

INTRODUCTION: Unless women start effective contraception after using emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies that are unable to provide ongoing contraception (apart from barrier methods which have high failure rates). This means that women need an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic. We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort crossover trial to determine whether or not pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill plus the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in increased subsequent use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine). METHODS: Twenty-nine pharmacies in three UK cities recruited women receiving emergency contraception (levonorgestrel). In the intervention, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 µg of desogestrel) plus a card that provided rapid access to a local sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control arm, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The primary outcome was reported use of an effective contraception (hormonal and intrauterine methods) at 4 months. Process evaluation was also conducted to inform any future implementation. RESULTS: The study took place December 2017 and June 2019 and recruited 636 women to the intervention (n = 316) and control groups (n = 320). There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics between the groups. Four-month follow-up data were available for 406 participants: 63% (198/315) of the control group and 65% (208/318) of the intervention group. The proportion of participants reporting use of effective contraception was 20.1% greater (95% confidence interval 5.2% to 35.0%) in the intervention group (58.4%, 95% confidence interval 48.6% to 68.2%) than in the control group (40.5%, 95% confidence interval 29.7% to 51.3%) (adjusted for recruitment period, treatment arm and centre; p = 0.011). The proportion of women using effective contraception remained statistically significantly larger, when adjusted for age, current sexual relationship and history of past use of effective contraception, and was robust to the missing data. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: Provision of a bridging supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a pharmacist and the invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic resulted in a significant increase in self-reported subsequent use of effective contraception. This simple intervention has the potential to prevent more unintended pregnancies for women after emergency contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70616901. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 27. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.The emergency contraceptive pill can prevent pregnancy following unprotected sex or a burst condom; however, unless women start a regular method of contraception they remain at risk of pregnancy. Most women obtain emergency contraception from a community pharmacy (chemist), but then require an appointment with a general practitioner or at a sexual and reproductive health clinic for ongoing contraception. Getting an appointment can take time and unintended pregnancies can occur during this time. If a pharmacist could give women a small supply of a progestogen-only pill or ‘mini-pill’ with their emergency contraception, together with help to get an appointment at a clinic, then this might help more women to start effective contraception. We undertook a study in 29 pharmacies in Lothian, Tayside and London among women receiving emergency contraception. Pharmacists provided either their standard advice about contraception (control group) or the intervention. The intervention was a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill plus a rapid-access card, which, if presented at a sexual and reproductive health clinic, would help women get an appointment for contraception. The order in which the pharmacy provided either control or intervention was randomised. We conducted telephone interviews with the women 4 months later to find out what contraception they were using. A total of 636 women took part in the study, 316 in the intervention group and 320 in the control group. The proportion who said that they were using an effective method of contraception was around 20% larger in the intervention group. In addition, fewer women in this group said that they had used emergency contraception again. This study shows that community pharmacy provision of a small supply of progestogen-only pills and the invitation to attend a sexual and reproductive health clinic results in a large increase in the use of effective contraception after emergency contraception. If this became routine practice then it could help prevent unintended pregnancies.

BACKGROUND Progestin-only contraceptive pills (POP) are commonly reserved for women with medical comorbidities but in actuality, POPs can be safely used by anyone wanting to prevent pregnancy. This wide safety profile makes them an ideal candidate for being available over the counter without a prescription, but adherence issues may be more common with over-the-counter use. We need a better understanding of the ability of POPs to prevent pregnancy when adherence issues occur in the form of a missed or delayed pill. OBJECTIVE This study aims to determine cervical mucus characteristics following a 6-hour delayed pill intake or after one missed pill as compared to typical daily use of norgestrel 75 mcg. METHODS This prospective, multicenter, randomized, crossover study assesses the effect of norgestrel 75 mcg (Opill) on cervical mucus and ovarian activity during reported compliant daily use, after a 6-hour delayed intake mid cycle, and after a mid-cycle missed pill. Subject participation will last approximately 4.5 months. We will recruit at 2 US sites: Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon and University of California Davis Health, Sacramento, California. Reproductive-aged subjects with regular menstrual cycles (21-35 days), BMI 3 ng/mL [>10 nmol/L]) are eligible to enroll. Participants cannot be at risk for pregnancy during the study period and not use other hormonal methods. Norgestrel 75 mcg will be taken at the same time daily except for one day in each of treatment periods 2 and 3, when the pill will be taken either 6 hours late (delayed pill) or omitted completely (missed pill). Every 3-4 days, we will monitor subjects for follicular activity with transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) examination, cervical mucus, and blood sampling for ovarian hormones and gonadotropins. Subjects will undergo serial cervical mucus sampling on the days with missed and delayed pill intake at 8 hours after pill intake on the day before the delayed or missed pill, 3 hours following the scheduled time of pill intake if intake was delayed, 6 hours after the scheduled time if intake was omitted, and on the next day 30 minutes before the time of scheduled pill intake. The primary objective of the study is to determine the effect of a delayed or omitted pill intake on cervical mucus characteristics based on a modified Insler score compared to reported daily use. RESULTS Our protocol was successfully approved by a central institutional review board (Advarra, Columbia, MD), received ethical approval on March 23, 2018, and was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03585712). As of January 2020, the study completed enrollment of 52 subjects. Analyses are pending. CONCLUSIONS Our protocol was approved by a central review board, and study procedures were successfully executed with completed proposed enrollment. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03585712; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03585712 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/29208

ObjectiveTo determine the potential cost savings resulting from the introduction of routine early medical abortion at home by telemedicine in the United Kingdom.DesignA cost-effectiveness analysis Setting: United KingdomPopulationWomen in 2020 undergoing early medical abortion provided by three independent abortion providers and two NHS abortion clinics.MethodsComputation of the costs of each abortion procedure and of managing failed or incomplete abortion and haemorrhage requiring blood transfusion.Outcome measuresCost savingsResultsOverall estimated cost savings are £15.80 per abortion undertaken by independent abortion providers representing a saving to the NHS of over £3 million per year. Limited data from NHS services resulted in an estimated average saving of £188.84 per abortion.ConclusionsWere telemedicine EMA to become routine, an increase in the number of women eligible for medical rather than surgical abortion, and a reduction in adverse events resulting from earlier abortion could result in significant cost-savings.Tweetable AbstractEarly medical abortion at home using telemedicine could save the NHS £3 million per year

Objective To compare outcomes before and after implementation of medical abortion (termination of pregnancy) without ultrasound via telemedicine. Design Cohort analysis. Setting The three main abortion providers. Population or sample Medical abortions at home at ≤69 days’ gestation in two cohorts: traditional model (in‐person with ultrasound, n = 22 158) from January to March 2020 versus telemedicine‐hybrid model (either in person or via telemedicine without ultrasound, n = 29 984, of whom 18 435 had no‐test telemedicine) between April and June 2020. Sample (n = 52 142) comprises 85% of all medical abortions provided nationally. Methods Data from electronic records and incident databases were used to compare outcomes between cohorts, adjusted for baseline differences. Main outcome measures Treatment success, serious adverse events, waiting times, gestation at treatment, acceptability. Results Mean waiting time from referral to treatment was 4.2 days shorter in the telemedicine‐hybrid model and more abortions were provided at ≤6 weeks’ gestation (40% versus 25%, P 0.999), serious adverse events (0.02% versus 0.04%, P = 0.557) and incidence of ectopic pregnancy (0.2% versus 0.2%, P = 0.796) were not different between models. In the telemedicine‐hybrid model, 0.04% were estimated to be over 10 weeks’ gestation at the time of the abortion; all were completed safely at home. Within the telemedicine‐hybrid model, effectiveness was higher with telemedicine than in‐person care (99.2% versus 98.1%, P, Tweetable abstract Compelling evidence from 52 142 women shows no‐test telemedicine abortion is safe, effective and improves care. This article includes Author Insights, a video abstract available at https://vimeo.com/bjog/authorinsights16668

BackgroundEmergency contraception (EC) was approved in the UK as a pharmacy medicine for purchase without prescription in 2001. Twenty years later we conducted a study to characterise routine practice pharmacy provision of EC.Study designMystery shopper study of 30 pharmacies in Edinburgh, Dundee and London participating in a clinical trial of contraception after EC.MethodsMystery shoppers, aged ≥16 years, followed a standard scenario requesting EC. After the pharmacy visit, they completed a proforma recording the duration of the consultation, where it took place, and whether advice was given to them about the importance of ongoing contraception after EC.ResultsFifty-five mystery shopper visits were conducted. The median reported duration of the consultation with the pharmacist was 6 (range 1–18) min. Consultations took place in a private room in 34 cases (62%) and at the shop counter in the remainder. In 27 cases (49%) women received advice about ongoing contraception. Eleven women (20%) left the pharmacy without EC due to lack of supplies or of a trained pharmacist. Most women were generally positive about the consultation.ConclusionsWhile availability of EC from UK pharmacies has undoubtedly improved access, the necessity to have a consultation, however helpful, with a pharmacist introduces delays and around one in five of our mystery shoppers left without getting EC. Consultations in private are not always possible and little advice is given about ongoing contraception. It is time to make EC available without a pharmacy consultation.

Some 27 years ago, in 1993, The Lancet published an editorial arguing the case for oral contraceptives over the counter (OTC).1 It opened by saying that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) had helped women ‘escape from the confines of their own reproductive system’ but that ‘these ex-prisoners remain on probation’ because they still needed to see a doctor regularly for a repeat prescriptions. This month, almost 60 years after approval in the UK, at last an oral contraceptive has been approved here for initiation and use without a doctor’s prescription. Desogestrel 75 μg daily, a progestogen-only pill (POP) available in the UK for over 20 years, will be available as a pharmacy medicine for use by women of all ages wishing to prevent pregnancy. While a few countries, like the Netherlands and New Zealand,2 have arrangements which allow women to obtain repeat supplies from pharmacies without a prescription, this will be the first time that women living in the industrialised world will be able to buy the pill without ever consulting a doctor. It has taken a long time. The pill is arguably one of the most widely used drugs in the world and one of the most intensively researched. In the UK, where almost one in three women currently using contraception choose the OCP,3 there must be very few women of reproductive age who have …

BACKGROUND: Unless women start effective contraception after oral emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies. We hypothesised that pharmacist provision of the progestogen-only pill as a bridging interim method of contraception with emergency contraception plus an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, in which all methods of contraception are available, would result in increased subsequent use of effective contraception.METHODS: We did a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial in 29 UK pharmacies among women receiving levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Women aged 16 years or older, not already using hormonal contraception, not on medication that could interfere with the progestogen-only pill, and willing to give contact details for follow-up were invited to participate. In the intervention group, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 μg desogestrel) plus a rapid access card to a participating sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The order in which each pharmacy provided the intervention or control was randomly assigned using a computer software algorithm. The primary outcome was the use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) at 4 months. This study is registered, ISRCTN70616901 (complete).FINDINGS: Between Dec 19, 2017, and June 26, 2019, 636 women were recruited to the intervention group (316 [49·6%], mean age 22·7 years [SD 5·7]) or the control group (320 [50·3%], 22·6 years [5·1]). Three women (one in the intervention group and two in the control group) were excluded after randomisation. 4-month follow-up data were available for 406 (64%) participants, 25 were lost to follow-up, and two participants no longer wanted to participate in the study. The proportion of women using effective contraception was 20·1% greater (95% CI 5·2-35·0) in the intervention group (mean 58·4%, 48·6-68·2), than in the control group (mean 40·5%, 29·7-51·3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0·011).The difference remained significant after adjusting for age, current sexual relationship, and history of effective contraception use, and was robust to the effect of missing data (assuming missingness at random). No serious adverse events occurred.INTERPRETATION: Provision of a supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a community pharmacist, along with an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, results in a clinically meaningful increase in subsequent use of effective contraception. Widely implemented, this practice could prevent unintended pregnancies after use of emergency contraception.FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment Programme project 15/113/01).

BackgroundUnprecedented public health actions restricting movement and non-COVID related health services are likely to have affected abortion care during the pandemic in Europe. In the absence of a common approach to ensure access to this essential health service, we sought to describe the variability of abortion policies during the outbreak in Europe in order to identify strategies that improve availability and access to abortion in times of public health crises.MethodsWe collected information from 46 countries/regions: 31 for which country-experts completed a survey and 15 for which we conducted a desk review. We describe abortion regulations and changes to regulations and practice during the pandemic.ResultsDuring COVID-19, abortions were banned in six countries and suspended in one. Surgical abortion was less available due to COVID-19 in 12 countries/regions and services were not available or delayed for women with COVID-19 symptoms in eleven. No country expanded its gestational limit for abortion. Changes during COVID-19, mostly designed to reduce in-person consultations, occurred in 13 countries/regions. Altogether eight countries/regions provided home medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol beyond 9 weeks (from 9 weeks+6 days to 11 weeks+6 days) and 13 countries/regions up to 9 weeks (in some instances only misoprostol could be taken at home). Only six countries/regions offered abortion by telemedicine.ConclusionsThe lack of a unified policy response to COVID-19 restrictions has widened inequities in abortion access in Europe, but some innovations including telemedicine deployed during the outbreak could serve as a catalyst to ensure continuity and equity of abortion care.

Objectives: The aims of the study were to explore women’s experiences of an immediate postpartum intrauterine contraception (PPIUC) service recently introduced in a UK maternity setting, to identify areas for improvement and inform service provision.Methods: Qualitative research was carried out in hospital and community maternity services in Lothian, UK. In-depth qualitative interview responses of 35 women who had received PPIUC at vaginal or caesarean delivery were subjected to thematic analysis to explore the women’s experiences of PPIUC service provision.Results: Women’s decisions to choose PPIUC were influenced by their perception of intrauterine contraception (IUC) as a suitable and effective method and the convenience of immediate postpartum insertion. Most women were satisfied with their experience of PPIUC. Women delivering vaginally sometimes reported concerns about delays to insertion, particularly where they perceived a lack of communication from staff about when and where insertion would occur. PPIUC information was described as being difficult to absorb in the context of ante/postnatal information overload. Those receiving PPIUC at caesarean delivery sometimes expressed concerns about what post-insertion support might be available in primary care.Conclusion: Women typically reported satisfaction with their decision to have PPIUC. For maternity services considering introducing PPIUC, our findings reinforce the importance of anticipating and addressing implementation challenges in order to enhance women’s experience of the service. These include ensuring that: clear and appropriate PPIUC information and support are provided antenatally; women are able to access PPIUC immediately after delivery; robust clinical pathways are in place to support post-insertion IUC care; and both staff and women are familiar with the clinical pathways.

Objectives To review systematically copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) use and HIV acquisition in women. Methods We searched Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library between database inception and 26 June 2019 for longitudinal studies comparing incident HIV infection among women using an unspecified IUD or Cu-IUD compared with non-hormonal or no contraceptive users, or hormonal contraceptive users. We extracted information from included studies, assessed study quality, and summarised study findings. Results From 2494 publications identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. One randomised controlled trial (RCT), judged “informative with few limitations”, found no statistically significant differences in HIV risk between users of the Cu-IUD and either intramuscular depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA-IM) or levonorgestrel implant. One observational study, deemed “informative but with important limitations”, found no statistically significant difference in HIV incidence among IUD users compared with women who had tubal ligation or who were not using any contraception. Another “informative but with important limitations” observational study found no difference in HIV incidence between Cu-IUD users and DMPA or norethisterone enanthate injectable, or implant users. An RCT considered “unlikely to inform the primary question” also found no difference in HIV risk between Cu-IUD and progestogen-only injectable users. Findings from the other three “unlikely to inform the primary question” cohort studies were consistent with the more robust studies suggesting no increased risk of HIV acquisition among Cu-IUD users. Conclusion The collective evidence, including that from a large high-quality RCT, does not indicate an increased risk of HIV acquisition among users of Cu-IUDs.

IntroductionOral emergency contraception (EC) can prevent unintended pregnancy but it is important to start a regular method of contraception. Women in the UK usually access EC from a pharmacy but then need a subsequent appointment with a general practitioner or a sexual and reproductive health (SRH) service to access regular contraception. Unintended pregnancies can occur during this time.Methods and analysisBridge-It is a pragmatic cluster randomised cohort cross-over trial designed to determine whether pharmacist provision of a bridging supply of a progestogen-only pill (POP) plus rapid access to a local SRH clinic, results in increased uptake of effective contraception and prevents more unintended pregnancies than provision of EC alone. Bridge-It involves 31 pharmacies in three UK regions (London, Lothian and Tayside) aiming to recruit 626–737 women. Pharmacies will give EC (levonorgestrel) according to normal practice and recruit women to both intervention and the control phases of the study. In the intervention phase, pharmacists will provide the POP (desogestrel) and offer rapid access to an SRH clinic. In the control phase, pharmacists will advise women to attend a contraceptive provider for contraception (standard care).Women will be asked 4 months later about contraceptive use. Data linkage to abortion registries will provide abortion rates over 12 months. The sample size is calculated on the primary outcome of effective contraception use at 4 months (yes/no) with 90% power and a 5% level of significance. Abortion rates will be an exploratory secondary analysis. Process evaluation includes interviews with pharmacists, SRH clinicians and women. Cost-effectiveness analysis will use a healthcare system perspective and be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received from South East Scotland REC June 2017. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN70616901.

AimTo describe prevalence and trends in contraceptive method use in Britain through a comparison of the second and third National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-2 and Natsal-3).MethodsCross-sectional probability sample surveys. General population sample of women aged 16–44 years, resident in Britain, with ever-experience of vaginal sex and, for analysis by sociodemographic characteristics, vaginal sex in the last year. Main outcome measure was current contraceptive method use (‘usual these days’), categorised by effectiveness.ResultsPrevalence of current contraceptive use among women who had ever had vaginal sex declined between Natsal-2 and Natsal-3, 83.5% (95% CI 82.4 to 84.5) and 76.4% (95% CI 75.0 to 77.7), respectively. The condom and oral contraceptive pill remain the most commonly used methods. One in five women reported use of a most effective method. While no difference was found between surveys in use of most effective methods, a decline in sterilisation use was compensated by an increase in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use. Increased LARC use was particularly evident among under-25s compared with women aged 40–44 years (OR 11.35, 95% CI 3.23 to 39.87) and a decline was observed among those with two or more children relative to those with none (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.35).ConclusionsStrategies to improve access to LARC methods have been particularly successful in increasing uptake among young people in the first decade of the 21st century. Whether this trajectory is maintained given changing sociodemographic characteristics and more recent financial cuts to sexual health service provision will warrant investigation.

Objective\ud \ud To examine experiences of contraceptive care from the perspective of health professionals and women seeking abortion, in the contexts of hospital gynaecology departments and a specialist sexual and reproductive health centre (SRHC).\ud \ud Materials and methods\ud \ud We conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 46 women who had received contraceptive care at the time of medical abortion (gestation≤9 weeks) from one SRHC and two hospital gynaecology-department-based abortion clinics in Scotland. We also interviewed 25 health professionals (nurses and doctors) involved in abortion and contraceptive care at the same research sites. We analysed interview data thematically using an approach informed by the Framework method, and comparison was made between the two clinical contexts.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Most women and health professionals felt that contraceptive counselling at abortion was acceptable and appropriate, if provided in a sensitive, nonjudgemental way. Participants framed contraceptive provision at abortion as significant primarily as a means of preventing subsequent unintended conceptions. Accounts of contraceptive decision making also presented tensions between the priorities of women and health professionals, around ‘manoeuvring’ women towards contraceptive uptake. Comparison between clinical contexts suggests that women's experiences may have been more positive in the SRHC setting.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Whilst abortion may be a theoretically and practically convenient time to address contraception, it is by no means an easy time to do so and requires considerable effort and expertise to be managed effectively. Training for those providing contraceptive care at abortion should explicitly address potential conflicts between the priorities of health professionals and women seeking abortion.\ud \ud Implications\ud \ud This paper offers unique insight into the detail of women and health professionals' experiences of addressing contraception at the time of medical abortion. The comparison between hospital and community SRHC contexts highlights best practise and areas for improvement relevant to a range of settings.

Background Community sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services are well placed to deliver abortion assessment services and early medical abortion (EMA), but comparative data on safety and acceptability from both settings are important for future service planning. Methods Retrospective review of computerised records of 1342 women undergoing outpatient EMA (≤9 weeks) in a community SRH or hospital department of gynaecology in the same city, and a self-completed, anonymous survey of 303 women requesting abortion at both sites. Primary outcome was safety in terms of re-attendance rates for a complication related to EMA. Secondary outcomes were telephone contact with each site for an EMA-related concern and satisfaction with information about abortion (defined as score out of 10) received at each site. Results There was no difference in re-attendance rates to either service for a complication following outpatient EMA (2.7%). A higher proportion of women undergoing EMA at the SRH site made telephone contact compared to women at the hospital site (18.8% vs 10.8%; p =0.033). Women rated both settings highly in terms of information received before abortion (9.2 and 9.6 out of 10) at the hospital and SRH sites, respectively. Conclusions This study suggests that provision of outpatient EMA in a community SRH setting is as safe as that delivered from a hospital setting, and that women are similarly satisfied with the information they receive about abortion from each setting. More abortion assessment and outpatient EMA services in Great Britain could shift from hospital to community SRH settings.

Background Discontinuation of, and change in, use of contraceptive methods contributes to high unplanned pregnancy rates. The aims of the Contessa study were to estimate the prevalence of and reasons for discontinuation and change and to assess the implications for preventive intervention. Methods Prospective cohort study of 1091 potentially fertile women aged 18–49, carried out during 2008, using a sample drawn from the Health Survey for England 2006, a random probability survey of health. We carried out a baseline survey followed by three further waves, exploring patterns of contraceptive use, characteristics of women experiencing each, and reasons for discontinuation and change. Findings A percentage of 3.7 of women were at risk of unplanned pregnancy and discontinued and/or changed a contraceptive method in a year, compared with 4.7% who were at risk of unplanned pregnancy and used no method. Compared with continuous users, stoppers and switchers were younger, better educated and more likely to be single. Women discontinued or changed their contraceptive method for reasons of ease of use, reliability, side effects or concerns over health effects. Barely a quarter of such decisions were influenced by medical staff. Interpretation Effective strategies to aid contraceptive adherence have proved elusive but, if found, could reduce unplanned pregnancy rates appreciably. Understanding of the factors contributing to successful contraceptive practice is essential to prevention of unintended pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: To estimate the prevalence of use of different sources of contraceptive supplies in Britain and its variation by key demographic and behavioural characteristics. METHODS: Cross-sectional probability sample survey of women and men aged 16-74 years, resident in Britain, interviewed between 2010 and 2012. Analyses reported here were of 4571 women and 3142 men aged 16-44 years who reported having vaginal sex in the past year. Those relying exclusively on sterilisation (including hysterectomy) were excluded. Sources of contraceptive supplies were categorised as: general practice, community clinic, retail and other. Prevalence of use of these sources was estimated, and associated factors examined. RESULTS: Some 87.0% of women and 73.8% of men accessed at least one source of contraceptive supplies in the previous year. Most women (59.1%) used general practice and most men (54.6%) used retail outlets. Community clinics were less commonly used, by 23.0% of women and 21.3% of men, but these users were younger and at greater sexual health risk. These associations were also observed among the 27.3% of women and 30.6% of men who used more than one source category (general practice, community clinic or retail) for contraceptive supplies. CONCLUSIONS: People in Britain use a variety of sources to obtain contraceptive supplies and some sources are more commonly used by those more vulnerable to poorer sexual health. Our findings suggest that national policy changes to increase access to contraceptive methods have had an effect on the diversity of services used.

We welcome Tvarozkova et al. 's1 investigation of their patient population's knowledge about postnatal contraception, and we agree that postnatal care currently represents a missed opportunity. However we would question the plan for a dedicated postnatal contraception service, in the absence of antenatal contraceptive counselling. The difficulty with a postpartum-only service is that discussing contraception …

Objective To explore the experiences of women in Scotland who return home to complete medical termination of pregnancy (TOP) ≤63 days of gestation, after being administered with mifepristone and misoprostol at an NHS TOP clinic. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting One National Health Service health board (administrative) area in Scotland. Population or Sample Women in Scotland who had undergone medical TOP ≤63 days, and self‐managed passing the pregnancy at home; recruited from three clinics in one NHS health board area between January and July 2014. Methods In‐depth, semi‐structured interviews with 44 women in Scotland who had recently undergone TOP ≤63 days of gestation, and who returned home to pass the pregnancy. Data were analysed thematically using an approach informed by the Framework method. Main outcome measures Women's experiences of self‐management of TOP ≤63 days of gestation. Results Key themes emerging from the analysis related to self‐administration of misoprostol in clinic; reasons for choosing home self‐management; facilitation of self‐management and expectation‐setting; experiences of getting home; self‐managing and monitoring treatment progress; support for self‐management (in person and remotely); and pregnancy self‐testing to confirm completion. Conclusions Participants primarily found self‐administration of misoprostol and home self‐management to be acceptable and/or preferable, particularly where this was experienced as a decision made jointly with health professionals. The way in which home self‐management is presented to women at clinic requires ongoing attention. Women could benefit from the option of home administration of misoprostol. Tweetable abstract Women undergoing medical TOP 63 days found home self‐management to be acceptable and/or preferable., Tweetable abstract Women undergoing medical TOP 63 days found home self‐management to be acceptable and/or preferable.

‘Body work’ has emerged at the nexus of sociologies of work and bodies as a means of conceptualising work focusing on the bodies of others. This article utilises this analytical tool in the context of contemporary abortion work. Abortion provision in Britain has seen significant change in the last 25 years, paralleling developments in medical methods, and the option for women under nine weeks' gestation to complete the abortion at home. These shifts raise questions around how abortion work is experienced by those who do it. We apply the conceptual lens of body work to data drawn from in‐depth interviews with 37 health professionals involved in abortion provision, to draw out the character, constraints and challenges of contemporary abortion work. We explore three key themes: the instrumental role of emotional labour in facilitating body work; the temporality of abortion work; and bodily proximity, co‐presence and changes in provision. By drawing on the conceptual frame of body work, we illuminate the dynamics of contemporary abortion work in Britain and, by introducing the idea of ‘body work‐by‐proxy’, highlight ways in which this context can be used to expand the conceptual boundaries of body work.

Objectives Most women who use emergency contraception (EC) do so because of unprotected sexual intercourse or condom failure and so remain at risk of pregnancy unless they commence an effective method of contraception. In Great Britain, increasingly women now choose to obtain EC from a pharmacy; however, pharmacists do not currently provide effective ongoing contraception. We sought to determine the views of women obtaining EC from pharmacies and clinicians working in sexual and reproductive health care (SRH) about the possibility of pharmacists providing a temporary supply of a progestogen-only pill (POP) together with EC. Methods Self-administered, anonymous questionnaires of (1) women requesting EC from pharmacies in Edinburgh, Scotland and (2) SRH clinicians attending a major UK scientific meeting. Results A total of 211/232 women completed questionnaires in pharmacies (a 91% response rate). Of those women not using a hormonal method of contraception at the time of EC ( n =166; 79%), almost half (44%) wished to use an effective method. Most women (64%) agreed that the option of a pharmacist being able to supply a POP would have been helpful. Among the SRH clinicians, 110 completed questionnaires out of 150 distributed (a 73% response rate). The majority of respondents (92%) were positive about a pharmacist supplying a POP at the time of EC. Conclusions A reasonable proportion of women requesting EC would like to start using an effective contraceptive method. Both the women and the SRH clinicians we surveyed are positive about the option of a short supply of a POP being provided by the pharmacy in the UK together with EC.

Women living in remote and rural areas of the UK face inequalities in provision of abortion services compared to their urban counterparts. Distances to travel, lack of providers, and legal restrictions that require administration of both mifepristone and misoprostol at the abortion service hamper access to, and provision of, abortion. NHS Highland provides care for women from a wide geographical area in the far north of Scotland, much of which is remote and rural and includes small islands. Abortion care is provided from a single National Health Service hospital department of obstetrics and gynaecology in Inverness. For some women, this means that they need to travel distances of over 100 miles to be assessed for an abortion, often using multiple modes of transport (including ferry and plane). Although abortion rates in this region are lower than the Scottish average (9.1 vs 11 per 1000 women aged 15–44 years), the total number of women having an abortion in the region is much lower than most parts of Scotland (fewer than 500 annually), reflecting the smaller population.1 This, combined with a lack of abortion providers in the region, means that the dedicated clinic for women requesting abortion takes place only once per week, adding to delays for some women. These factors undoubtedly contribute to the consistent failure to meet national standards for sexual health that recommend that 70% of women seeking abortion should undergo the procedure at 9 weeks’ gestation or earlier (i.e. 67% in 2014).1 ,2 We piloted and evaluated four new initiatives in the service aimed at improving access to abortion and minimising delays in provision. The chair of the local research ethics committees confirmed that ethical committee approval was not required for this health services research. The initiatives were piloted between June 2010 (or June 2011) and August …

Introduction In order to better identify those women requesting abortion who are not certain of their decision and would like more detailed discussion, we piloted use of a self-completed validated questionnaire containing the London Measure of Unintended Pregnancy (LMUP) amongst women requesting an abortion at a hospital clinic in Scotland. Study Design A retrospective case note review was conducted to determine the proportion for whom the pregnancy was clearly unintended (based on LMUP score), the proportion who were certain of their decision and the eventual outcome of the pregnancy. Results One hundred and ninety-one women with a viable pregnancy completed a questionnaire. Based on the LMUP score, the pregnancy was clearly unintended in 165 (86%) cases; 162 of these (98%) proceeded to abortion. One hundred and seventy-three women (91%) stated that they were certain of the decision to have an abortion, 167 of them (97%) proceeded to abortion, and 153 women (89%) did not want any further discussion. Thirteen women (6.8%; 95% confidence interval: 4.0–11.3) continued the pregnancy. Conclusion Almost all women requesting an induced abortion had a clearly unintended pregnancy, were certain of their decision and did not wish further counseling. A simple self-completed questionnaire identifies those who may benefit from further discussion. Subjecting women to compulsory counseling about their decision to have an abortion is in conflict with their wishes and wastes resources.

Background Abortion services should provide high-quality contraceptive care. The community sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services may be well placed to deliver more abortion care in the UK. We wished to determine the views of health professionals working in SRH regarding their attitudes towards providing more abortion services and also the views of staff within one community SRH centre in Scotland where a service providing early medical abortion (EMA) was due to commence. Methods An anonymous questionnaire distributed to attendees at a UK SRH scientific meeting collected data on demographics, current practice of and attitude to abortion, and views on delivery of abortion services. An internet questionnaire distributed by e-mail to staff at a community SRH clinic in Scotland sought demographics, views regarding the planned introduction of an EMA service and willingness to participate in it. Results 165 questionnaires were completed out of 200 distributed at the scientific meeting (an 82% response rate). 128 (78%) respondents felt that abortion services were suited to community clinics and 115 (70%) stated that they would be willing to participate in them. 62/90 (69%) staff from the SRH clinic responded to the internet questionnaire. 44 (71%) felt the plan to introduce abortion services was a natural extension to services already offered and the same number would be willing to be involved in such a service. Conclusion There is clear support amongst health professionals in community SRH in the UK towards greater participation in the provision of abortion care services.

Background Immediate initiation of an intrauterine device (IUD) or intrauterine system (IUS) following termination of pregnancy (TOP) is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of another TOP. In spite of its high efficacy, uptake of intrauterine contraception in the UK is low. Myths and misconceptions about the method may contribute to the low uptake. Study design Anonymous, self-administered questionnaire among women requesting a TOP in a hospital abortion service in Scotland, UK. Methods Misconceptions about intrauterine contraception were extracted from an online social networking and micro-blogging service, and from existing research to develop a questionnaire containing 12 negative statements about intrauterine contraception. Respondents indicated their level of agreement with each statement. Results A total of 106/125 (85%) women requesting a TOP completed the questionnaire. The two commonest negative statements that respondents agreed with were that the IUD/IUS ‘Is painful to have inserted’ ( n =36; 34%) and that ‘It can move around inside your body’ ( n =25; 23.6%). The range of women who neither agreed nor disagreed with negative statements was 26.4–56.0%. Twenty-seven (25%) women indicated that the IUD/IUS was their planned method of post-TOP contraception. Conclusions Although myths about intrauterine contraception persist among a small proportion of women requesting a TOP, lack of knowledge about the method is also evident. The consultation prior to TOP is an important opportunity to provide accurate and quality information to women about the IUD/IUS that may serve to increase uptake and prevent repeat abortions.

Although the possibilities for the treatment of infertility have been improved tremendously, not every couple will be treated successfully.Crude overall pregnancy rates of 50-65% per patient can be achieved nowadays, irrespective of the type of profertility treatment applied first.IVF only accounts for about 20% of the pregnancies achieved. Dropout is an important reason for not reaching the estimated pregnancy rate. Even after failed IVF, spontaneous pregnancies do occur. Sperm and oocyte donation (OD) offer additional chances to subfertile couples. Severity of the male factor (in sperm donation) and young donor age (in OD) are important determinants of success.Analysis of assisted reproduction technology outcomes would benefit from more universally accepted definitions and deserves better statistical analysis. Long-term cumulative live birth rates of 80% may be expected if dropout can be limited. Milder stimulation, a patient-friendlier approach and better counseling may help to keep more patients in the program.

The Lothian Emergency Contraception Project in Scotland was a radical intervention in which women aged 16-29 were given 5 packs of emergency contraception (EC) to keep at home. We use survey and qualitative interview data to describe how women used the project packs and their views of advance supplies. The women's accounts suggest that concerns that eased access to emergency contraception will lead to repeated use and risky sex appear to be largely unfounded. Women were pleased to be offered the packs, which were reported as having practical advantages and also sparing them the difficulty of negotiating a sometimes awkward consultation. Respondents explained how they used their packs of EC and in their accounts used justifications, repetition and distancing to emphasise that they would not take risks with contraception or sexually transmitted infections. We interpret the data in the light of the observation that EC has an anomalous role in contraception and the work of applied linguists Candlin and Lucas who have demonstrated the difficulties inherent in the family planning consultation.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence of infertility and of help seeking among women and men in Britain? SUMMARY ANSWER: One in eight women and one in ten men aged 16-74 years had experienced infertility, defined by unsuccessfully attempting pregnancy for a year or longer, and little more than half of these people sought medical or professional help. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Estimates of infertility and help seeking in Britain vary widely and are not easily comparable because of different definitions and study populations. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional population survey was conducted between 2010 and 2012 with a sample of 15 162 women and men aged 16-74 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants completed the Natsal-3 questionnaire, using computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) and computer-assisted self-interview (CASI). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The reported prevalence of infertility was 12.5% (CI 95% 11.7-13.3) among women and 10.1% (CI 95% 9.2-11.1) among men. Increased prevalence was associated with later cohabitation with a partner, higher socio-economic status and, for those who had a child, becoming parents at older ages. The reported prevalence of help seeking was 57.3% (CI 95% 53.6-61.0) among women and 53.2% (CI 95% 48.1-58.1) among men. Help seekers were more likely to be better educated and in higher status occupations and, among those who had a child, to have become parents later in life. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: These data are cross-sectional so it is not possible to establish temporality or infer causality. Self-reported data may be subject to recall bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The study provides estimates of infertility and help seeking in Britain and the results indicate that the prevalence of infertility is higher among those delaying parenthood. Those with higher educational qualifications and occupational status are more likely to consult with medical professionals for fertility problems than others and these inequalities in help seeking should be considered by clinical practice and public health. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funding was provided by grants from the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust, with support from the Economic and Social Research Council and the Department of Health. AMJ is a Governor of the Wellcome Trust. Other authors have no competing interests.

Summary Background In 2000, a 10-year Teenage Pregnancy Strategy was launched in England to reduce conceptions in women younger than 18 years and social exclusion in young parents. We used routinely collected data and data from Britain's National Surveys of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal) to examine progress towards these goals. Methods In this observational study, we used random-effects meta-regression to analyse the change in conception rates from 1994–98 to 2009–13 by top-tier local authorities in England, in relation to Teenage Pregnancy Strategy-related expenditure per head, socioeconomic deprivation, and region. Data from similar probability sample surveys: Natsal-1 (1990–91), Natsal-2 (1999–2001), and Natsal-3 (2010–12) were used to assess the prevalence of risk factors and their association with conception in women younger than 18 years in women aged 18–24 years; and the prevalence of participation in education, work, and training in young mothers. Findings Conception rates in women younger than 18 years declined steadily from their peak in 1996–98 and more rapidly from 2007 onwards. More deprived areas and those receiving greater Teenage Pregnancy Strategy-related investment had higher rates of conception in 1994–98 and had greater declines to 2009–13. Regression analyses assessing the association between Teenage Pregnancy Strategy funding and decline in conception rates in women younger than 18 years showed an estimated reduction in the conception rate of 11·4 conceptions (95% CI 9·6–13·2; p