Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34782337›Full record

ArticleBMJ sexual & reproductive health2022

Time trends in contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care 2000-2018: a repeated cross-sectional study.

Thomas Joshua Pasvol, E Anne Macgregor, Greta Rait, Laura Horsfall

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas Joshua PasvolThe Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK thomas.pasvol@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-8334-9931
E Anne MacgregorCentre for Reproductive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry Centre for Neuroscience and Trauma, London, UK.
Greta RaitThe Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Laura HorsfallThe Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 209207
6 · The paper itself

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

Contraceptive AgentsReimbursement, IncentiveAdolescentCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansPrimary Health CareUnited KingdomContraceptive Agentscontraceptivesepidemiologygeneral practicelong-acting reversible contraceptionoral

Identifiers

PMID34782337
PMCPMC9279840
OpenAlexW3214267498

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.