Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33189179›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2020

Use of effective contraception following provision of the progestogen-only pill for women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (Bridge-It): a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial.

Sharon T Cameron, Anna Glasier, Lisa McDaid, Andrew Radley, Paula Baraitser, Judith Stephenson, Richard Gilson, Claire Battison, Kathleen Cowle, Mark Forrest and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Sharon T CameronDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK; Chalmers Sexual and Reproductive Health, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK. Electronic address: sharon.cameron@ed.ac.uk.
Anna GlasierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Lisa McDaidInstitute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Andrew RadleyDirectorate of Public Health, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK; Division of Cardiovascular Medicines and Diabetes, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Paula BaraitserDepartment of Sexual Health, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Judith StephensonElizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Richard GilsonInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Claire BattisonEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Kathleen CowleBoots UK, Edinburgh, UK.
Mark ForrestHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Beatriz GoulaoHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Anne JohnstoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alessandra MorelliDepartment of Sexual Health, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Susan PattersonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Alison McDonaldHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Thenmalar VadivelooHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
John NorrieEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
University of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GBNHS Lothian · GBNinewells Hospital · GBUniversity College Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBWalgreens Boots Alliance (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1Chief Scientist Office SPHSU11Chief Scientist Office SPHSU18Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/3Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/11Medical Research Council MC_UU_12017/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnless women start effective contraception after oral emergency contraception, they remain at risk of unintended pregnancy. Most women in the UK obtain emergency contraception from community pharmacies. We hypothesised that pharmacist provision of the progestogen-only pill as a bridging interim method of contraception with emergency contraception plus an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, in which all methods of contraception are available, would result in increased subsequent use of effective contraception.

methodsWe did a pragmatic cluster-randomised crossover trial in 29 UK pharmacies among women receiving levonorgestrel emergency contraception. Women aged 16 years or older, not already using hormonal contraception, not on medication that could interfere with the progestogen-only pill, and willing to give contact details for follow-up were invited to participate. In the intervention group, women received a 3-month supply of the progestogen-only pill (75 μg desogestrel) plus a rapid access card to a participating sexual and reproductive health clinic. In the control group, pharmacists advised women to attend their usual contraceptive provider. The order in which each pharmacy provided the intervention or control was randomly assigned using a computer software algorithm. The primary outcome was the use of effective contraception (hormonal or intrauterine) at 4 months. This study is registered, ISRCTN70616901 (complete).

findingsBetween Dec 19, 2017, and June 26, 2019, 636 women were recruited to the intervention group (316 [49·6%], mean age 22·7 years [SD 5·7]) or the control group (320 [50·3%], 22·6 years [5·1]). Three women (one in the intervention group and two in the control group) were excluded after randomisation. 4-month follow-up data were available for 406 (64%) participants, 25 were lost to follow-up, and two participants no longer wanted to participate in the study. The proportion of women using effective contraception was 20·1% greater (95% CI 5·2-35·0) in the intervention group (mean 58·4%, 48·6-68·2), than in the control group (mean 40·5%, 29·7-51·3 [adjusted for recruitment period, treatment group, and centre]; p=0·011).The difference remained significant after adjusting for age, current sexual relationship, and history of effective contraception use, and was robust to the effect of missing data (assuming missingness at random). No serious adverse events occurred.

interpretationProvision of a supply of the progestogen-only pill with emergency contraception from a community pharmacist, along with an invitation to a sexual and reproductive health clinic, results in a clinically meaningful increase in subsequent use of effective contraception. Widely implemented, this practice could prevent unintended pregnancies after use of emergency contraception.

fundingNational Institute for Health Research (Health Technology Assessment Programme project 15/113/01).

Indexed as

Contraception BehaviorAdolescentAdultCluster AnalysisContraception, PostcoitalContraceptives, PostcoitalCross-Over StudiesDesogestrelFemaleHumansPharmaciesPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedProgestinsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomContraceptives, PostcoitalDesogestrelProgestins

Identifiers

PMID33189179
PMCPMC7661838
OpenAlexW3100585708

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.