ArticleBMJ sexual & reproductive health2022
Time trends in contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care 2000-2018: a repeated cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of UK Quality and Outcomes Framework pay-for-performance programme on quality of primary care: systematic review with quantitative synthesis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Pooled 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
- Prescribed hormonal contraceptive use trends in the Estonian Biobank: A longitudinal observational study.PLoS medicine · 2026Observational
- Contraceptive use in France in 2012 and 2022: a descriptive analysis of two repeated nationwide cross-sectional studies.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Article
- Bridging the knowledge gap: a feminist lens on the post-birth control syndrome and media narratives.Frontiers in global women's health · 2025Article
- Mapping the evidence on the impact of heat stress on exercise and work performance in females: a scoping review.Frontiers in physiology · 2025Review
- Depression risk in users of different doses of levonorgestrel intrauterine systems: a nationwide prospective cohort study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Implementation and Feasibility of the VALORA Checklist for Structured Anamnesis in Oral Contraceptive Counseling in Spain: Results from a Survey-Based Pilot Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver the last 20 years, new contraceptive methods became available and incentives to increase contraceptive uptake were introduced. We aimed to describe temporal trends in non-barrier contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care for the period 2000-2018.
methodsA repeated cross-sectional study using patient data from the IQVIA Medical Research Data (IMRD) database. The proportion (95% CI) of women prescribed non-barrier contraception per year was captured.
resultsA total of 2 705 638 women aged 15-49 years were included. Between 2000 and 2018, the proportion of women prescribed combined hormonal contraception (CHC) fell from 26.2% (26.0%-26.3%) to 14.3% (14.2%-14.3%). Prescriptions for progestogen-only pills (POPs) and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) rose from 4.3% (4.3%-4.4%) to 10.8% (10.7%-10.9%) and 4.2% (4.1%-4.2%) to 6.5% (6.5%-6.6%), respectively. Comparing 2018 data for most deprived versus least deprived areas, women from the most deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed LARC (7.7% (7.5%-7.9%) vs 5.6% (5.4%-5.8%)) while women from the least deprived areas were more likely to be prescribed contraceptive pills (20.8% (21.1%-21.5%) vs 26.2% (26.5%-26.9%)). In 2009, LARC prescriptions increased irrespective of age and social deprivation in line with a pay-for-performance incentive. However, following the incentive's withdrawal in 2014, LARC prescriptions for adolescents aged 15-19 years fell from 6.8% (6.6%-7.0%) in 2013 to 5.6% (5.4%-5.8%) in 2018.
conclusionsCHC prescribing fell by 46% while POP prescribing more than doubled. The type of contraception prescribed was influenced by social deprivation. Withdrawal of a pay-for-performance incentive may have adversely affected adolescent LARC uptake, highlighting the need for further intervention to target this at-risk group.
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.