S'abonner

Contraception after medication abortion in the United States: results from a cluster randomized trial - 04/01/18

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.09.020 
Corinne H. Rocca, PhD, MPH a, b, , Suzan Goodman, MD, MPH a, Daniel Grossman, MD a, b, Kara Cadwallader, MD c, Kirsten M.J. Thompson, MPH a, Elizabeth Talmont, MSN, ANP-BC d, J. Joseph Speidel, MD, MPH a, Cynthia C. Harper, PhD a
a Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 
b Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, Oakland, CA 
c Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands, Seattle, WA 
d Planned Parenthood of Northern, Central, and Southern New Jersey Inc, Morristown, NJ 

Corresponding author: Corinne Rocca, PhD, MPH.

Abstract

Background

Understanding how contraceptive choices and access differ for women having medication abortions compared to aspiration procedures can help to identify priorities for improved patient-centered postabortion contraceptive care.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the differences in contraceptive counseling, method choices, and use between medication and aspiration abortion patients.

Study Design

This subanalysis examines data from 643 abortion patients from 17 reproductive health centers in a cluster, randomized trial across the United States. We recruited participants aged 18–25 years who did not desire pregnancy and followed them for 1 year. We measured the effect of a full-staff contraceptive training and abortion type on contraceptive counseling, choice, and use with multivariable regression models, using generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis with shared frailty to model actual intrauterine device and subdermal implant initiation over 1 year.

Results

Overall, 26% of participants (n = 166) had a medication abortion and 74% (n = 477) had an aspiration abortion at the enrollment visit. Women obtaining medication abortions were as likely as those having aspiration abortions to receive counseling on intrauterine devices or the implant (55%) and on a short-acting hormonal method (79%). The proportions of women choosing to use these methods (29% intrauterine device or implant, 58% short-acting hormonal) were also similar by abortion type. The proportions of women who actually used short-acting hormonal methods (71% medication vs 57% aspiration) and condoms or no method (20% vs 22%) within 3 months were not significantly different by abortion type. However, intrauterine device initiation over a year was significantly lower after the medication than the aspiration abortion (11 per 100 person-years vs 20 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.28–0.89). Implant initiation rates were low and similar by abortion type (5 per 100 person-years vs 4 per 100 person-years, adjusted hazard ratio, 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–6.59). In contrast to women choosing short-acting methods, relatively few of those choosing a long-acting method at enrollment, 34% of medication abortion patients and 53% of aspiration abortion patients, had one placed within 3 months. Neither differences in health insurance nor pelvic examination preferences by abortion type accounted for lower intrauterine device use among medication abortion patients.

Conclusion

Despite similar contraceptive choices, fewer patients receiving medication abortion than aspiration abortion initiated intrauterine devices over 1 year of follow-up. Interventions to help patients receiving medication abortion to successfully return for intrauterine device placement are warranted. New protocols for same-day implant placement may also help patients receiving medication abortion and desiring a long-acting method to receive one.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : abortion, implant, intrauterine device, long-acting reversible contraception, medical abortion, medication abortion, postabortion contraception, randomized trial


Plan


 The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
 The supporting entities of this study had no role in the study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication to the Journal.
 This study was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Intrauterine device demonstration units for the intervention training were provided by Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and Bayer HealthCare. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy provided a small grant to produce the patient education video. Support was also received from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Office of Research on Women’s Health, and Bridging Interdisciplinary Research on Women’s Health grant 2K12 HD052163.
 Dr Cadwallader is a Nexplanon trainer (Merck). The other authors report no conflicts of interest.
 Cite this article as: Rocca CH, Goodman S, Grossman D, et al. Contraception after medication abortion in the United States: results from a cluster randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;218:107.e1-8.


© 2017  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 218 - N° 1

P. 107.e1-107.e8 - janvier 2018 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Discussing sarcoma risks during informed consent for nonhysterectomy management of fibroids: an unmet need
  • Brandon-Luke L. Seagle, Amy L. Alexander, Anna E. Strohl, Shohreh Shahabi
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Surgical outcomes among elderly women with endometrial cancer treated by laparoscopic hysterectomy: a NRG/Gynecologic Oncology Group study
  • Erin A. Bishop, James J. Java, Kathleen N. Moore, Nick M. Spirtos, Michael L. Pearl, Oliver Zivanovic, David M. Kushner, Floor Backes, Chad A. Hamilton, Melissa A. Geller, Jean Hurteau, Cara Mathews, Robert M. Wenham, Pedro T. Ramirez, Susan Zweizig, Joan L. Walker

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.