BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health最新文献

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is limited within abortion-related research. Possible reasons for this include concerns about engaging with a stigmatised patient group who value confidentiality and may be reluctant to re-engage with services. Structural barriers, including limited funding for abortion-related research, also prevent researchers from creating meaningful PPI opportunities. Here, we describe lessons learnt on undertaking PPI as part of the Shaping Abortion for Change (SACHA) Study, which sought to create an evidence base to guide new directions in abortion care in Britain.Two approaches to PPI were used: involving patients and the public in the oversight of the research and its dissemination as lay advisors, and group meetings to obtain patients' views on interpretation of findings and recommendations. All participants observed the SACHA findings aligned with their own experiences of having an abortion in Britain. These priorities aligned closely with those identified in a separate expert stakeholder consultation undertaken as part of the SACHA Study. One additional priority which had not been identified during the research was identified by the PPI participants.We found abortion patients to be highly motivated to engage in the group meetings, and participation in them actively contributed to the destigmatisation of abortion by giving them a space to share their experiences. This may alleviate any ethical concerns about conducting research and PPI on abortion, including the assumption that revisiting an abortion experience will cause distress. We hope that our reflections are useful to others considering PPI in abortion-related research and service improvement.

Objective: To assess patient experiences of pain management during medical abortion up to 10 weeks' gestation with opt-in versus universal codeine provision.

Methods: We invited patients who underwent medical abortion up to 10 weeks of gestation to participate in an online, anonymous, English-language survey from November 2021 to March 2022. We performed ordinal regression analyses to compare satisfaction with pain management (5-point Likert scale) and maximum abortion pain score (11-point numerical rating scale) in the opt-in versus universal codeine provision groups.

Results: Of 11 906 patients invited to participate, 1625 (13.6%) completed the survey. Participants reported a mean maximum pain score of 6.8±2.2. A total of 1149 participants (70.7%) reported using codeine for pain management during their abortion. Participants in the opt-in codeine provision group were significantly more likely to be satisfied with their pain management than those in the universal group (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.96, p<0.01). Maximum abortion pain scores were lower on average among the opt-in codeine provision group (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96, p=0.02); however, this association was not statistically significant in the model adjusted for covariates (aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, p=0.09).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that patients have a better experience with pain management during medical abortion when able to opt-in to codeine provision following counselling versus receiving this medication routinely.

Background: The unmet need for postpartum contraception is a global challenge. Postpartum placement of an intrauterine device (IUD) within 48 hours of vaginal delivery is available in many settings worldwide, but is not routinely practised in Sweden. To improve contraceptive services and facilitate the informed choice of IUD placement at the time of a caesarean section (CS), we performed this study to identify and describe women's experiences of contraceptive services before, during and after an elective CS.

Methods: A qualitative design and methodology was used. We interviewed 20 women aged 28-42 years who underwent elective CS in Sweden. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: The three main themes found were (1) receptivity to contraceptive counselling in the context of CS, (2) communication and decision-making about postpartum contraception before CS and (3) lack of support and guidance to receive contraceptive services before and after CS. The participants described readiness and interest regarding postpartum contraception. They prefered counselling from around 25 weeks of gestation. Despite this finding, antenatal communication and contraceptive decision-making seemed rare. Participants reported a lack of support and guidance which necessitated a need by women to navigate the contraceptive services themselves in order to receive information about contraception before CS and to receive postpartum support.

Conclusions: Antenatal contraceptive counselling including information about IUD placement during CS was appreciated and welcomed by women with elective CS as their birth method. Most of the women whom we interviewed would prefer to receive contraception counselling on postpartum use during the second half of their pregnancy.

Background: National lockdowns in England due to COVID-19 resulted in rapid shifts in healthcare provision, including in primary care where most contraceptive prescriptions are issued. This study aimed to investigate contraception prescribing trends in primary care during the pandemic and the impact of socioeconomic deprivation.

Methods: Prescribing data were accessed from the English Prescribing Dataset for the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020-28 February 2021) and the year prior (1 March 2019-29 February 2020). Data were analysed by geographical region (London, Midlands and East of England, North of England, South of England) and contraceptive type (progestogen-only pill (POP), combined oral contraception (COC), emergency hormonal contraception (EHC) and contraceptive injections). Differences in prescribing rates were calculated using Poisson regression. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores for each Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in the North East and North Cumbria (NENC).

Results: Contraception prescribing rates decreased overall during the COVID-19 pandemic in England (Poisson regression coefficient (β)=-0.035), with a statistically significant (p<0.01) decrease in all four regions. Prescriptions decreased for COC (β=-0.978), contraceptive injections (β=-0.161) and EHC (β=-0.2005), while POP (β=0.050) prescribing rates increased. There was a weak positive correlation between IMD and prescribing rates in NENC (p>0.05).

Conclusions: Contraception provision was impacted by COVID-19 with an overall decrease in prescribing rates. The deprivation results suggest that this may not be a significant contributing factor to this decrease. Further research is recommended to better understand these changes, and to ensure that services respond appropriately to population needs.

Introduction: Sexual well-being is associated with general well-being. Several factors, such as overweight, infertility, anxiety and sex hormones, also play a role, but the effects of hormonal contraception remain a point of debate. We characterised the factors associated with sexual well-being in fertile-aged women following induced abortion.

Methods: A 5-year follow-up of a nested, longitudinal, cohort study examining the effects of routine provision of intrauterine contraception as part of abortion care. Sexual well-being, anxiety and quality of life were assessed annually using validated questionnaires (McCoy Female Sexuality Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and EuroQoL), along with data on general and reproductive health, and relationship status. Of the 742 women participating in the trial, 290 (39%) provided sufficient follow-up data and were included in this study.

Results: Based on trajectories of McCoy scores across the 5-year follow-up, two groups were identified: those with stable and higher (n=223, 76.9%) and those with declining sexual well-being (n=67, 23.1%). Women in the group of declining sexual well-being had significantly higher levels of anxiety and lower quality of life at all time points. They also had chronic diseases more often and were less happy in their relationships. No differences were found in method of contraception when classified as hormonal versus non-hormonal, or long-acting versus short-acting reversible contraception.

Conclusions: Lower anxiety and higher quality of life are associated with stable and higher sexual well-being. Method of contraception or relationship status are not associated with sexual well-being during long-term follow-up in fertile-aged women.