Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32925909›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2020

Impact of a pay-for-performance scheme for long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) advice on contraceptive uptake and abortion in British primary care: An interrupted time series study.

Richard Ma, Elizabeth Cecil, Alex Bottle, Rebecca French, Sonia Saxena

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard MaDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6877-2785
Elizabeth CecilDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5281-6656
Alex BottleDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9978-2011
Rebecca FrenchDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sonia SaxenaDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3787-2083

Funding

Department of Health DRF-2017-10-181Department of Health NIHR-DRF-2017-10-181Department of Health PD-SPH-2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is among the most effective contraceptive methods, but uptake remains low even in high-income settings. In 2009/2010, a target-based pay-for-performance (P4P) scheme in Britain was introduced for primary care physicians (PCPs) to offer advice about LARC methods to a specified proportion of women attending for contraceptive care to improve contraceptive choice. We examined the impact and equity of this scheme on LARC uptake and abortions. METHODS AND

findingsWe examined records of 3,281,667 women aged 13 to 54 years registered with a primary care clinic in Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland) using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014. We used interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to examine trends in annual LARC and non-LARC hormonal contraception (NLHC) uptake and abortion rates, stratified by age and deprivation groups, before and after the P4P was introduced in 2009/2010. Between 2004/2005 and 2013/2014, crude LARC uptake rates increased by 32.0% from 29.6 per 1,000 women to 39.0 per 1,000 women, compared with 18.0% decrease in NLHC uptake. LARC uptake among women of all ages increased immediately after the P4P with step change of 5.36 per 1,000 women (all values are per 1,000 women unless stated, 95% CI 5.26-5.45, p < 0.001). Women aged 20 to 24 years had the largest step change (8.40, 8.34-8.47, p < 0.001) and sustained trend increase (3.14, 3.08-3.19, p < 0.001) compared with other age groups. NLHC uptake fell in all women with a step change of -22.8 (-24.5 to -21.2, p < 0.001), largely due to fall in combined hormonal contraception (CHC; -15.0, -15.5 to -14.5, p < 0.001). Abortion rates in all women fell immediately after the P4P with a step change of -2.28 (-2.98 to -1.57, p = 0.002) and sustained decrease in trend of -0.88 (-1.12 to -0.63, p < 0.001). The largest falls occurred in women aged 13 to 19 years (step change -5.04, -7.56 to -2.51, p = 0.011), women aged 20 to 24 years (step change -4.52, -7.48 to -1.57, p = 0.030), and women from the most deprived group (step change -4.40, -6.89 to -1.91, p = 0.018). We estimate that by 2013/2014, the P4P scheme resulted in an additional 4.53 LARC prescriptions per 1,000 women (relative increase of 13.4%) more than would have been expected without the scheme. There was a concurrent absolute reduction of -5.31 abortions per 1,000 women, or -38.3% relative reduction. Despite universal coverage of healthcare, some women might have obtained contraception elsewhere or had abortion procedure that was not recorded on CPRD. Other policies aiming to increase LARC use or reduce unplanned pregnancies around the same time could also explain the findings.

conclusionsIn this study, we found that LARC uptake increased and abortions fell in the period after the P4P scheme in British primary care, with additional impact for young women aged 20-24 years and those from deprived backgrounds.

Indexed as

Abortion, InducedAbortion, SpontaneousAdolescentAdultContraceptionContraceptive Agents, FemaleFemaleHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionMiddle AgedPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedPrimary Health CareReimbursement, IncentiveUnited KingdomContraceptive Agents, Female

Identifiers

PMID32925909
PMCPMC7489538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.