Understanding barriers to using long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-21 DOI:10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201560
Emma Linton, Rebecca Mawson, Victoria Hodges, Caroline Anne Mitchell
{"title":"Understanding barriers to using long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.","authors":"Emma Linton,&nbsp;Rebecca Mawson,&nbsp;Victoria Hodges,&nbsp;Caroline Anne Mitchell","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":"282-292"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201560","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.

了解在初级保健中使用长效可逆避孕药的障碍:定性证据综合。
背景:长效可逆避孕药是非常有效的。在初级保健中,尽管有效率较高,但LARC的处方频率低于依赖使用者的避孕药。在英国,计划外怀孕正在增加,LARC可能会通过减少和纠正不公平的避孕机会来发挥作用。为了提供能提供最大选择和患者利益的避孕服务,我们必须了解避孕使用者和医疗保健专业人员(HCP)对LARC的看法,并揭示使用LARC的障碍。方法:使用CINAHL、MEDLINE via Ovid、PsycINFO、Web of Science和EMBASE进行系统搜索,确定了LARC在初级保健中用于预防妊娠的研究。该方法遵循“系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目”方法,对文献进行批判性评估,并使用NVivo软件组织数据和进行主题分析以确定关键主题。结果:16项研究符合我们的纳入标准。确定了三个主题:(1)可信度(参与者在哪里以及从谁那里获得有关LARC的信息),(2)控制(LARC是否有损于个人自主性)和(3)系统(HCP如何影响LARC访问)。社交网络中经常出现对LARC的误解,对放弃生育控制的担忧也很突出。HCP认为获取问题和缺乏熟悉度或培训是开LARC的主要障碍。结论:初级保健在改善获得LARC的机会方面发挥着关键作用,但需要解决障碍,尤其是那些涉及误解和错误信息的障碍。获得LARC移除服务是授权选择和防止胁迫的关键。在以患者为中心的避孕咨询中促进信任至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信