Original StudiesThe effects of advance provision of emergency contraception on adolescent women's sexual and contraceptive behaviors
Introduction
Despite improvements in the accessibility and range of contraceptive options available to young women, in 1998 American adolescents had over 840,000 pregnancies.1., 2. Eighty-five percent of pregnancies in adolescents were unintended and they resulted in 495,000 births and 270,000 abortions.3 Emergency contraception (EC) reduces the risk of pregnancy after unprotected sex or when a planned contraceptive method fails. EC is effective when taken within 72 to 120 hours after intercourse, but is more effective the sooner it is taken.4., 5., 6. Delaying the first dose of EC by 12 hours increases the odds of pregnancy by almost 50%.5 If used following all contraception failures, EC could prevent 50% of unintended pregnancies and 60–70% of abortions annually.7 Given that EC is safe and significantly more effective the sooner it is used, why not prescribe EC in advance to every female adolescent? Some health care providers have concerns that making EC more available by prescribing it in advance will cause adolescents to have more frequent unprotected intercourse and less frequent use of reliable contraception, which could contribute to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and pregnancies.8., 9., 10.
Several studies have examined the impact of providing advance EC on women's sexual and contraceptive behaviors.11., 12., 13., 14., 15. In the first and largest study of advance provision of emergency contraception published in 1998, Glasier and colleagues enrolled over 1000 Scottish women, ages 16–44, and followed them for a year after enrollment.11 They found that women were more likely to use EC if they had it in advance and were not more likely to abandon reliable contraceptive methods compared to women in the control group. However, consistency of contraceptive use was not assessed. Participants were predominately university-educated adults and were enrolled after having had an abortion or after having received EC thus making results less generalizable to other populations of young women.
In 2000, Lovvern and colleagues reported on adult women, ages 18 to 45 years, from family planning clinics in Ghana who were provided with a single course of advance EC. Participants were recruited from four clinic sites, two where EC was provided in advance and two where EC was provided on demand. They found that women who had EC at home were more likely to use it and were more likely to use EC promptly.12 The study findings were limited by lack of randomization of intervention groups and a relatively short followup at 4 and 8 weeks after enrollment.
In 2000, Raine and colleague examined the effects of providing advance EC on the ongoing contraception use of predominantly minority, high-risk young women in San Francisco, ages 16–2413 recruited from publicly funded family planning clinics. They provided participants with a single course of EC and re-assessed them at a single followup interview 4 months later. They found that, compared to participants in the control group, young women with advance EC were significantly more likely to use EC but not more likely to report unprotected intercourse. However, the advance EC group was more likely to report using less effective and less consistent contraception at followup. This study had a higher percentage of adolescent women than any other (mean age of subjects of 19 years).
In 2001, Ellertson and colleagues published a study of adult women in Pune, India, who used condoms for contraception.14 In this study participants were provided with three courses of EC at enrollment. Participants who had EC in advance were more likely to use it compared to the control group but did not use EC more than once. Generalizability to U.S. adolescent women was limited because only adult women in India who used condoms for contraception were enrolled, none of the participants in the study had ever heard of EC before enrolling in the study, and few (6%) reported unprotected intercourse during the study.
In 2003, Jackson and colleagues evaluated the impact of advance provision of EC vs. usual care on the use of EC and usual contraceptive practices among 370 predominantly adult post-partum women from an inner-city public hospital.15 They found women provided EC in advance were four times more likely to use it over the course of the 1-year followup compared to women in the control group. However, the women in the advance provision group were no more likely to change to a less effective method of contraception or to report using contraception less consistently. Generalizability to U.S. adolescents was limited because few participants (18%) were adolescents and most were Latina (72%). In addition, staff who conducted the baseline survey were not blinded to treatment group.
Prior studies of advance provision of EC have not focused specifically on adolescent women. Researchers have either excluded women under the age of 1812., 14. or had low percentages of participants (18–25%) who were under the age of 20.11., 15. The largest study with adolescents assessed predominantly late adolescents with a mean age of 19 years.13 To assess whether adolescent women who were provided with advance emergency contraception (AEC) would have riskier sexual behaviors, we conducted a randomized prospective study of young women, ages 15 to 20 years, who either received EC in advance or who had to obtain EC at the time it was needed. We wanted to test the hypotheses that AEC group participants would use EC more frequently than the control group and that they would begin a course of EC sooner after unprotected intercourse. We also wanted to test whether AEC group participants would increase their frequency of unprotected intercourse and decrease their use of ongoing, reliable contraception, such as condoms or oral contraceptive pills.
Section snippets
Study design
This randomized prospective study compared the sexual and contraceptive behaviors of adolescent women provided with EC education and advance EC (AEC group) with the behaviors of adolescent women who were provided with EC education only (control group). Using the medical indications for emergency contraceptive use, unprotected intercourse was defined as vaginal-penile intercourse where nothing was used to prevent pregnancy or where a method failed. The outcome measures of this study were
Participants
We screened 779 young women and enrolled 301 with a mean age of 17.1 ±1.7 years. See Fig. 1 for a flow diagram of recruitment and retention. At the 1-month followup, 240 participants (80%) of the enrollment sample were interviewed. At the 6-month followup, 192 participants (64%) of the enrollment sample were interviewed. There were no significant differences in retention by group at the 1-month followup but at the 6-month followup a significantly higher proportion of control group participants
Discussion
The results of this study suggest that providing advance EC promotes earlier use of EC without negatively impacting the ongoing use of condoms or hormonal contraception. Although there have been several studies that have assessed the impact of providing advance EC on women's sexual and contraceptive behaviors,11., 12., 13., 14., 15. this is the first study that focuses solely on young adolescent women between the ages of 15 and 20 years of age. Similar to Glasier and colleagues, our study
Conclusions
In this setting, advance provision of EC was not associated with more frequent unprotected intercourse reported in the past month or at last intercourse at either the 1- or the 6-month followup interviews when compared to the control group participants. Indeed, contrary to many health care providers' and the public's views, at the final interview the AEC group participants reported significantly higher condom use. At the 1-month followup, the AEC group participants reported using EC nearly
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the Laurel Foundation for providing financial support for participant reimbursement, for purchasing and re-packaging medications used in this project, and for support of statistical analysis. We would also like to acknowledge the Women's Capitol Corporation for generously donating the medication (Plan B) that was used in the latter half of the study. We would like to thank the Research Advisory Committee of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh for providing summer research
References (30)
- et al.
Effectiveness of emergency contraceptive pills between 72 and 120 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2001) - et al.
Timing of emergency contraception with levonorgestrel or the Yuzpe regimen. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
WHO Research Group on Post-Ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised trial
Lancet
(2002) - et al.
Provision of emergency contraceptive pills to spermicide users in Ghana
Contraception
(2000) - et al.
Emergency contraception: Advance provision in a young, high-risk clinic population
Obstet Gynecol
(2000) - et al.
Emergency contraception: Randomized comparison of advance provision and information only
Obstet Gynecol
(2001) - et al.
Advance supply of emergency contraception: effect on use and usual contraception—a randomized trial
Obstet Gynecol
(2003) - et al.
Assessment of oral contraceptive pill continuation in young women
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol
(1999) - et al.
Contraceptive compliance with a levonorgestrel triphasic and a norethindrone monophasic oral contraceptive in adolescent patients
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1992) Risk of contraceptive discontinuation among adolescents
J Adolesc Health Care
(1989)
Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use
Am J Obstet Gynecol
Postpartum contraceptive use among adolescent mothers
Obstet Gynecol
Comparison of continuation rates for hormonal contraception among adolescents
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol
Access to emergency contraception
Obstet Gynecol
National and state-specific pregnancy rates among adolescents—United States, 1995–1997
MMWR
Cited by (162)
Contraception
2019, Yen & Jaffe's Reproductive Endocrinology: Physiology, Pathophysiology, and Clinical Management: Eighth EditionModel for Hormonal Emergency Contraception (HEC) in cycling and mated guinea pigs – Studies with the Progesterone Receptor Modulators (PRM) Ulipristal Acetate (UPA/CDB2914) and EC317
2018, Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyImproving Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Systematic Review of Potential Interventions
2016, Journal of Adolescent HealthEmergency Contraception Pill Awareness and Knowledge in Uninsured Adolescents: High Rates of Misconceptions Concerning Indications for Use, Side Effects, and Access
2015, Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent GynecologyContraception in adolescence (updated January 2013)
2014, Progresos de Obstetricia y GinecologiaEmergency contraception
2015, New England Journal of Medicine