Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35149574›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2022

Improving effective contraception uptake through provision of bridging contraception within community pharmacies: findings from the Bridge-it Study process evaluation.

Susan Patterson, Lisa McDaid, Kristina Saunders, Claire Battison, Anna Glasier, Andrew Radley, Judith M Stephenson, Anne Johnstone, Alessandra Morelli, Deirdre Sally and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors.

Susan PattersonMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK susan.patterson@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1846-5749
Lisa McDaidMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7711-8723
Kristina SaundersSchool of Social and Political Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Claire BattisonEdinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Anna GlasierDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Andrew RadleyDirectorate of Public Health, NHS Tayside, Dundee, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4772-2388
Judith M StephensonElizabeth Garrett Anderson Institute for Women's Health, University College London, London, UK.
Anne JohnstoneDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
Alessandra MorelliKing's College Hospital and King's Centre for Global Health and Health Partnerships, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9803-2136
Deirdre SallyInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nicola StewartInstitute for Global Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sharon Tracey CameronDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1168-2276

Funding

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

Abstract

objectiveTo present process evaluation results from the Bridge-it Study, a pragmatic cluster randomised cross-over trial to improve effective contraception uptake through provision of the progestogen only pill (POP) plus sexual and reproductive health (SRH) clinic rapid-access to women presenting to community pharmacies for emergency contraception (EC). RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsA multimethod process evaluation was conducted to assess intervention implementation, mechanisms of change and contextual factors. Data were gathered from screening logs (n=599), observations of pharmacist training, analysis of data from 4-month follow-up questionnaires (n=406), monitoring of contemporaneous events and qualitative interviews with 22 pharmacists, 5 SRH clinical staff and 36 study participants in three participating UK sites in Lothian, Tayside and London.

resultsThe intervention was largely delivered as intended and was acceptable. Pharmacists', SRH clinical staff and participants' accounts highlighted that providing a supply of POP with EC from the pharmacy as routine practice may have positive impacts on contraceptive practices in the short term, and potentially longer term. Key mechanisms of change included ease of access, increased awareness of contraception and services, and greater motivation and perceptions of self-efficacy. Few participants took up the offer to attend an SRH service (rapid-access component), and existing barriers within the SRH context were apparent (eg, lack of staff). Participant accounts highlight persistent barriers to accessing and using routine effective contraception remain.

conclusionsImplementation appeared to be acceptable and feasible, highlighting the potential for provision of POP within EC consultations as routine practice in community pharmacies. However, lack of engagement with the rapid access component of the intervention and existing barriers within the SRH context suggest that signposting to SRH services may be sufficient. Wider implementation should consider ways to address key implementation challenges to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to overcome persistent barriers to accessing and using effective contraception. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70616901.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesContraception, PostcoitalPharmaciesPharmacyContraceptionContraception BehaviorFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansprimary carepublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID35149574
PMCPMC8845311

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.