BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health最新文献

BackgroundEthnic minorities in high-income countries have higher rates of unintended pregnancies but are less likely to use highly efficacious long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). The reasons for this are unclear.

Aim: To understand the views and experiences of ethnic minorities within high-income countries about LARC.

Methodology: Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Sociological Abstracts were searched systematically to find qualitative articles about views on LARC. Titles and abstracts were screened to select qualitative studies about LARC whose participants were mainly from ethnic minorities in high-income countries. Quality assessment was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Thematic synthesis was conducted.

Results: Seventeen studies (19 articles) met the inclusion criteria, 14 of which were from the USA (227 participants identified as Latina, 222 Black, 15 multiracial, 4 Asian). Two studies included 32 Chinese women in the UK and Australia and one included 20 Aboriginal women in Australia. Factors influencing uptake of LARC included side effects, convenience, and perceived efficacy of LARC compared with other methods; women's ideas, concerns and expectations; and external influences (partner, family/friends, health professionals and society). Convenience of LARC, control over reproductive decisions, and desire to prevent pregnancy were the main facilitators. Barriers included specific cultural concerns about irregular bleeding, concerns about racial discrimination, and family/friends having negative views on LARC.

Conclusions: Ethnic minority women often have additional needs and concerns about LARC compared with the White majority. Further research is needed to develop and evaluate customised respectful counselling on contraception options for ethnic minority women and their partners.

Background: Short birth intervals and unintended pregnancy are associated with poorer maternal and infant outcomes. There is a risk of pregnancy during the immediate postpartum period unless contraception is initiated. This retrospective cohort study aimed to capture the current patterns of hormonal contraceptive provision within 12 months postpartum in a high-income country.

Methods: We used a linked administrative dataset comprising all women who gave birth in Queensland, Australia between 1 July 2012 and 30 June 2018 (n=339 265 pregnancies). We described our cohort by whether they were provided with government-subsidised hormonal contraception within 12 months postpartum. The associations between hormonal postpartum contraceptive provision and demographic and clinical characteristics were examined using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and presented in terms of crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: A majority of women (60.2%) were not provided with government-subsidised hormonal postpartum contraception within 12 months postpartum. Women who were younger (<25 years), were overweight or obese, smoked, were born in Australia, were non-Indigenous, gave birth in a public hospital, or were in the lowest socioeconomic status group were more likely to be provided with postpartum contraception after adjusting for other covariates, compared with their counterparts.

Conclusions: Strategies to increase the provision and uptake of contraception in the immediate postpartum period are needed to prevent short birth intervals and unintended pregnancy and ensure women's fertility intentions are enacted. Ongoing research is needed to examine the factors influencing women's access to contraceptive services and, further, the types of contraception provided.

Background: Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are highly effective. In primary care, LARCs are prescribed less frequently than user-dependent contraceptives despite higher efficacy rates. Unplanned pregnancies are rising in the UK, and LARCs may have a role in reducing these through and redressing inequitable contraceptive access. To provide contraceptive services that offer maximal choice and patient benefit, we must understand what contraception users and healthcare professionals (HCPs) think about LARCs and uncover barriers to their use.

Methods: A systematic search using CINAHL, MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, Web of Science and EMBASE identified research about LARC use for pregnancy prevention in primary care. The approach adhered to the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' methodology, critically appraised the literature, and used NVivo software to organise data and perform thematic analysis to determine key themes.

Results: Sixteen studies met our inclusion criteria. Three themes were identified: (1) trustworthiness (where and from whom participants obtained information regarding LARCs), (2) control (whether LARCs detract from personal autonomy) and (3) systems (how HCPs influenced LARC access). Misgivings about LARCs frequently arose from social networks and fears of surrendering control over fertility were prominent. HCPs perceived access issues and lack of familiarity or training as the main barriers to prescribing LARCs.

Conclusions: Primary care plays a key role in improving access to LARC but barriers need to be addressed especially those involving misconception and misinformation. Access to LARC removal services are key to empower choice and prevent coercion. Facilitating trust within patient-centred contraceptive consult is essential.