Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on December 18, 2008
Human Reproduction 2009 24(4):815-819; doi:10.1093/humrep/den460
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF )
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/4/815    most recent
den460v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in Hum. Reprod.
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 Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baecher, L.
Right arrow Articles by Raymond, E. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Baecher, L.
Right arrow Articles by Raymond, E. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Increased access to emergency contraception: why it may fail

Laura Baecher1,3, Mark A. Weaver2 and Elizabeth G. Raymond2

1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 101 Manning Drive, CB #7570, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA 2 Family Health International, PO Box 13950, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA

3 Correspondence address. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 101 Manning Drive, CB #7570, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA. E-mail: lbaecher{at}hotmail.com

BACKGROUND: To explore why increased access to emergency contraception (EC) failed to reduce pregnancies in a recent randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: We used multivariable logistic regression to identify risk factors for unintended pregnancy using data from a trial involving sexually active women (n = 1490, aged 14–24 years) randomly assigned to either increased access or standard access to EC. We used predictive modeling to generate estimated pregnancy risk scores for each participant. We then examined EC use among women at low or high baseline risk of pregnancy.

RESULTS: Gravidity, recent history of unprotected sex (within 14 days of enrollment to study) and lower aversion to pregnancy predicted unintended pregnancy. Women in the increased access group were more likely than women in the standard access group to use EC repeatedly. This difference was significantly stronger (P = 0.03) among low risk women than high risk women [Relative risk (RR) 10.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.5–15.4 and RR 5.5, 95% CI 3.8–7.9, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS: Increased access to EC had a greater impact on women who were at lower baseline risk of pregnancy. This may explain in part why increased access to EC has had no measurable benefit in clinical trials.

Key words: emergency contraception/unintended pregnancy/risk

Submitted on October 5, 2008; resubmitted on November 17, 2008; accepted on November 24, 2008.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Hum. Reprod.:

Editor's Choice
André Van Steirteghem
Hum. Reprod. 2009 24: 763. [Extract] [Full Text]  





Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.