Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36050668›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

Emergency contraception subsidy in Canada: a comparative policy analysis.

Sabrina C Lee, Wendy V Norman

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sabrina C LeeFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Wendy V NormanFaculty of Public Health & Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical, London, UK. wendy.norman@ubc.ca.
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

CIHR CPP-329455-107837
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn Canada, cost prohibits access to emergency contraception (EC) which may assist to prevent unintended pregnancy. The drug, ulipristal acetate (UPA-EC), is more clinically effective and cost-effective than the prior standard levonorgestrel (LNG-EC). We analyzed provincial EC subsidization policies and examined underlying decision-making processes.

methodsWe undertook documentary analysis of provincial EC subsidization policies in publicly available drug formularies. We conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants to explore the processes underlying current policies.

resultsQuebec is the only province to subsidize UPA-EC, whilst all ten provinces subsidize LNG-EC. As such, provincial EC subsidization policies do not align with the latest UPA-EC evidence. Interviews revealed that evidence was valued in the policymaking process and formulary decisions were made through interdisciplinary consensus.

conclusionsWe identify a gap between EC subsidization policies and the latest evidence. Institutional structures affect policies reflecting evolving evidence. Increasing interdisciplinary mechanisms may encourage evidence-based policies.

Indexed as

Contraception, PostcoitalFemaleHumansLevonorgestrelPolicyPolicy MakingPregnancyPregnancy, UnplannedLevonorgestrelCanadaEmergency contraceptionEvidence-based policyHealth policyUlipristal acetateUniversal subsidy

Identifiers

PMID36050668
PMCPMC9438154
OpenAlexW4294101084

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.