Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35288384›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2022

Over-the-counter provision of emergency contraceptive pills: a systematic review.

Kaitlyn Atkins, Caitlin E Kennedy, Ping Teresa Yeh, Manjulaa Narasimhan

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Emergency contraception in primary health care.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. 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.

Kaitlyn AtkinsDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Caitlin E KennedyDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Ping Teresa YehDepartment of International Health, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7425-0382
Manjulaa NarasimhanDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland narasimhanm@who.int.

Funding

The Brown Initiative in HIV and AIDS Clinical Research for Minority CommunitiesR25MH083620 · NIMH · MIRIAM HOSPITAL · PI NUNN, AMY STEWART · 2008 to 2025
$3.7M
Intersectional Stigma and Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Continuation among Female Sex Workers in NamibiaF31MH124583 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI ATKINS, KAITLYN M · 2020 to 2022
$81k
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH083620World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo synthesise evidence around over-the-counter (OTC) emergency contraceptive pills (ECPs) to expand the evidence base on self-care interventions.

designSystematic review (PROSPERO# CRD42021231625). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included publications comparing OTC or pharmacy-access ECP with prescription-only ECPs and measuring ECP uptake, correct use, unintended pregnancy, abortion, sexual practices/behaviour, self-efficacy and side-effects/harms. We also reviewed studies assessing values/preferences and costs of OTC ECPs. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, CINAL, LILACS, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, Cochrane Fertility Regulation and International Consortium for Emergency Contraception through 2 December 2020. RISK OF BIAS: For trials, we used Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias; for other studies, we used the Evidence Project risk of bias tool. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We summarised data in duplicate using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profile tables, reporting findings by study design and outcome. We qualitatively synthesised values/preferences and cost data.

resultsWe included 19 studies evaluating effectiveness of OTC ECP, 56 on values/preferences and 3 on costs. All studies except one were from high-income and middle-income settings. Broadly, there were no differences in overall ECP use, pregnancy or sexual behaviour, but an increase in timely ECP use, when comparing OTC or pharmacy ECP to prescription-only ECP groups. Studies showed similar/lower abortion rates in areas with pharmacy availability of ECPs. Users and providers generally supported OTC ECPs; decisions for use were influenced by privacy/confidentiality, convenience, and cost. Three modelling studies found pharmacy-access ECPs would lower health sector costs.

conclusionOTC ECPs are feasible and acceptable. They may increase access to and timely use of effective contraception. Existing evidence suggests OTC ECPs do not substantively change reproductive health outcomes. Future studies should examine OTC ECP's impacts on user costs, among key subgroups and in low-resource settings.

Indexed as

Contraception, PostcoitalContraceptives, PostcoitalPharmaciesAustraliaFemaleHumansNonprescription DrugsPregnancyContraceptives, PostcoitalNonprescription Drugsmaternal medicineorganisation of health servicespublic healthreproductive medicine

Identifiers

PMID35288384
PMCPMC8921871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.