Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e054122, 2022 03 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1741631

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence around over-the-counter (OTC) emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) to expand the evidence base on self-care interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO# CRD42021231625). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included publications comparing OTC or pharmacy-access ECP with prescription-only ECPs and measuring ECP uptake, correct use, unintended pregnancy, abortion, sexual practices/behaviour, self-efficacy and side-effects/harms. We also reviewed studies assessing values/preferences and costs of OTC ECPs. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, CINAL, LILACS, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Cochrane Fertility Regulation and International Consortium for Emergency Contraception through 2 December 2020. RISK OF BIAS: For trials, we used Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias; for other studies, we used the Evidence Project risk of bias tool. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We summarised data in duplicate using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profile tables, reporting findings by study design and outcome. We qualitatively synthesised values/preferences and cost data. RESULTS: We included 19 studies evaluating effectiveness of OTC ECP, 56 on values/preferences and 3 on costs. All studies except one were from high-income and middle-income settings. Broadly, there were no differences in overall ECP use, pregnancy or sexual behaviour, but an increase in timely ECP use, when comparing OTC or pharmacy ECP to prescription-only ECP groups. Studies showed similar/lower abortion rates in areas with pharmacy availability of ECPs. Users and providers generally supported OTC ECPs; decisions for use were influenced by privacy/confidentiality, convenience, and cost. Three modelling studies found pharmacy-access ECPs would lower health sector costs. CONCLUSION: OTC ECPs are feasible and acceptable. They may increase access to and timely use of effective contraception. Existing evidence suggests OTC ECPs do not substantively change reproductive health outcomes. Future studies should examine OTC ECP's impacts on user costs, among key subgroups and in low-resource settings.


Subject(s)
Contraception, Postcoital , Contraceptives, Postcoital , Pharmacies , Australia , Contraceptives, Postcoital/therapeutic use , Female , Humans , Nonprescription Drugs/therapeutic use , Pregnancy
2.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e054120, 2022 Feb 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714411

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Urine pregnancy tests are often inaccessible in low-income settings. Expanded provision of home pregnancy testing could support self-care options for sexual and reproductive health and rights. We conducted a systematic review of pregnancy self-testing effectiveness, values and preferences and cost. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE and four trial registries were searched through 2 November 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included trials and observational studies that compared urine self-testing for pregnancy to health worker-led pregnancy testing on effectiveness outcomes; quantitative and qualitative studies describing values and preferences of end users and health workers and costs of pregnancy self-testing. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers used standardised methods to search, screen and code included studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence Project tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using random effects models. Findings were summarised in GRADE evidence profiles and synthesised qualitatively. RESULTS: For effectiveness, four randomised trials following 5493 individuals after medical abortion showed no difference or improvements in loss to follow-up with home pregnancy self-testing compared with return clinic visits. One additional trial of community health workers offering home pregnancy tests showed a significant increase in pregnancy knowledge and antenatal counselling among 506 clients. Eighteen diverse values and preferences studies found support for pregnancy self-testing because of quick results, convenience, confidentiality/privacy, cost and accuracy. Most individuals receiving pregnancy self-tests for postabortion home management preferred this option. No studies reported cost data. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy self-testing is acceptable and valued by end users. Effectiveness data come mostly from articles on postabortion care, and cost data are lacking. Greater availability of pregnancy self-tests, including in postabortion care and CHW programs, may lead to improved health outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021231656.


Subject(s)
Abortion, Induced , Self-Testing , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Pregnancy , Qualitative Research
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL