Advertisement

Pharmacy World & Science

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 183–189 | Cite as

Women’s preferences for the provision of emergency hormonal contraception services

  • Elizabeth M. SestonEmail author
  • Rachel A. Elliott
  • Peter R. Noyce
  • Katherine Payne
Original paper

Abstract

Objective

To elicit women’s preferences for routes of supply for emergency hormonal contraception (EHC). The objectives were to identify which attributes of services women regard as important and to identify how women trade off reductions in one attribute for an improvement in another.

Method

A stated preference discrete choice experiment. Women attending sexual health services in a Primary Care Trust in the North West of England were invited to complete a self-completion questionnaire. Each respondent completed a questionnaire containing nine pair-wise choices. Demographic data were also collected. Conditional logit models were used to analyse the data.

Main outcome measure

Women’s preferences for, and trade-offs between, the attributes of opening hours, medical staff seen, cost of EHC, length of wait for an appointment, privacy of consultation and attitude of staff.

Results

Two hundred and sixty-nine women attending clinics (mean age 23.8 years, SD±8.69) completed the questionnaire. Almost two thirds of the sample had previously used EHC. All six attributes of EHC services were statistically significant factors influencing women’s preferences for the supply of EHC. A significant proportion of women indicated on at least one occasion that they would risk pregnancy rather than choose one of the services offered to them.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the way in which a service is configured and presented to women is likely to influence which service is chosen. In this study, women prioritised visiting a service where they would be treated in a sympathetic and non-judgemental manner. They also prioritised privacy. The results also suggest that if women are dissatisfied with aspects of an EHC service, they may choose not to visit it, thereby risking an unwanted pregnancy.

Keywords

Contraception EHC services Emergency hormonal contraception Family planning United Kingdom Women’s preferences 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the women who took part in the study. They would also like to thank the staff at the clinics within the Primary Care Trust who assisted in the distribution of the questionnaire. This paper reports work funded as part of the first author’s Ph.D. study. This was funded by the NHS Northwest Regional Training Programme.

References

  1. 1.
    Paintin D. The provision of emergency hormonal contraception. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Press; 1995. ISBN: 0902331760.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burton R, Savage W. Knowledge and use of post-coital contraception: a survey among health professionals in Tower Hamlets. Br J Gen Pract 1990;40:326–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crosier A. Womens’ knowledge and awareness of emergency contraception. Br J Fam Plann 1996;22:87–90.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nurse N. Should we be turning them away? Accid Emerg Nurs 1993;1:111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drife J. Deregulating emergency contraception: justified on current information. Br Med J 1993;307:695–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harrison-Woolrych M, Duncan A, Howe J, Smith C. Improving access to emergency contraception: allowing pharmacy sales should help reduce unwanted pregnancies. Br Med J 2001;322:186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lambeth Southwark & Lewisham Health Action Zone. A timely service: a LSL HAZ project on access to emergency hormonal contraception via accredited community pharmacies. 2001. London, Community Health South London Trust.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anderson C, Bissell P, Sharma S, Sharma R. The Manchester, Salford and Trafford Health Action Zone Community Pharmacy Emergency Contraception Service: Evaluation Report. 2001. Manchester, Manchester, Salford & Trafford Health Action Zone.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anon. NHS walk-in centres: implications for pharmacy. Pharm J 2000;265:305–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marston C, Meltzer H, Majeed A. Impact on contraceptive practice of making emergency hormonal contraception available over the counter in Great Britain: repeated cross sectional surveys. Br Med J 2005;331:271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Louviere J, Hensher DA, Swait J. Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. ISBN: 0521788307.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greene WH. Econometric analysis. New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 2003. ISBN: 0131108492.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shackley P, Ryan M. Involving consumers in health care decision-making. Health Care Anal 1995;3:196–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ryan M, Gerard K. Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003;2:55–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ryan M. Discrete choice experiments in health care. Br Med J 2004;328:360–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Folkes L, Graham A, Weiss M. A qualitative study of the views of women aged 18–29 on over-the-counter availability of hormonal emergency contraception. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2001;27:189–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassell K, Rogers A, Noyce PR. Community pharmacy as a primary health and self-care resource: a framework for understanding pharmacy utilization. Health Soc Care Community 2000;8:40–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ratcliffe J. The use of conjoint analysis to elicit willingness-to-pay values: proceed with caution. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:270–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bissell P, Anderson C. Supplying emergency contraception via community pharmacies in the UK: reflections on the experiences of users and providers. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:2367–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bell T, Millward J. Women’s experiences of obtaining emergency contraception: a phenomenological study. J Clin Nurs 1999;85:601–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Free C, Lee RM, Ogden J. Young women’s accounts of factors influencing their use and non-use of emergency contraception: in-depth interview study. Br Med J 2002;325:1393–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pearmain D, Swanson J, Kroes E, Bradley M. Stated preference techniques: a guide to practice. In: Steer Davies Gleave, Hague Consulting Group, editors. The Hague; 1991. ISBN: 095157261X.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1681–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Seston EM, Holden K, Cantrill JA. Emergency hormonal contraception: the community pharmacy perspective. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2001;27:203–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brook Advisory Centres. "Someone with a smile would be your best bet": what young people want from sex advice services. London: Brook Advisory Centres; 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Killick SR, Irving G. A national study examining the effect of making emergency hormonal contraception available without prescription. Hum Reprod 2004;19:553–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Maxwell M, Mooney A, Wilson P. A consumer survey of the availability of hormonal postcoital contraception in the North West Region. Br J Fam Plann 1996;22:79–81.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gbolade BA, Elstein M, Yates D. UK accident and emergency departments and emergency contraception: what do they think and do? J Accid Emerg Med 1999;16:35–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Lancet 1998;352:428–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lewington G, Marshall K. Access to emergency hormonal contraception from community pharmacists and family planning clinics. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006;61:605–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Anderson C, Blenkinsopp A. Community pharmacy supply of emergency hormonal contraception: a structured literature review of international evidence. Hum Reprod 2006;21:272–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bissell P, Anderson C. Enhanced access to emergency contraception. Lancet 2005;365:1668–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth M. Seston
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rachel A. Elliott
    • 1
  • Peter R. Noyce
    • 1
  • Katherine Payne
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical SciencesThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.The North West Genetics Knowledge ParkThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations