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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluating the impact of remote care in sexual and reproductive health services on outcomes and health inequalities in the UK: a retrospective observational study of routine service-level data.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Sexual and reproductive health and rights of migrant women attending primary care in England: A population-based cohort study of 1.2 million individuals of reproductive age (2009-2018).Journal of migration and health · 2024Article
- Using responsive feedback from routine monitoring data to guide course corrections for a family planning intervention in Nigeria.Gates open research · 2023Article
- Hidden in plain sight: A systematic review of coercion and Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive methods (LARC).PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Time trends in contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care 2000-2018: a repeated cross-sectional study.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2022Article
- Characterising and monitoring preconception health in England: a review of national population-level indicators and core data sources.Journal of developmental origins of health and disease · 2022Review
- Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on contraceptive prescribing in general practice: a retrospective analysis of English prescribing data between 2019 and 2020.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.