Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40721270›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2025

Effect of universal no-cost coverage on use of long-acting reversible contraception and all prescription contraception: population based, controlled, interrupted time series analysis.

Laura Schummers, Lucy Cheng, Martin Odendaal, Elisabet Rodriguez-Llorian, I Fan Kuo, Wendy V Norman, Amanda Black, Andrea Stucchi, Mary Helmer-Smith, Elizabeth Nethery and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien
    Article
  7. 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

23 authors.

Laura SchummersCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada laura.schummers@ubc.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3536-0498
Lucy ChengCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Martin OdendaalPharmaceutical Analytics, Corporate Services Division, Ministry of Health, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Elisabet Rodriguez-LlorianPharmaceutical Analytics, Corporate Services Division, Ministry of Health, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.
I Fan KuoHealth System Policy and Oversight Division, Ministry of Health, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.
Wendy V NormanDepartment of Family Practice, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Amanda BlackDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Andrea StucchiCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mary Helmer-SmithCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Elizabeth NetheryCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Amanda DowneyCentre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
G Emmanuel GuindonCentre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kim McGrailCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Erin A BrennandDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Sabrina LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Amy MetcalfeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Stirling BryanSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Elizabeth K DarlingDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Stefania BertazzonDepartment of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Vanessa PoliquinDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Nathan C NickelDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Fiona ClementDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Michael R LawCentre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate effects of a policy introducing universal, no-cost public coverage for prescription contraception on use in British Columbia, Canada.

designPopulation based, controlled, interrupted time series analysis.

setting10 Canadian provinces.

participantsPrescription medications dispensed to reproductive aged (15-49 years) female residents of British Columbia, Canada, compared with a synthetic control derived from the nine other Canadian provinces and a population based cohort of 859 845 female individuals in British Columbia (age 15-49 years) between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2024.

interventionIntroduction of a universal contraception coverage policy in April 2023, where the public insurer pays 100% of prescription costs. OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of monthly dispensations for long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and number of monthly dispensations for all forms of prescription contraception (including LARC), percentage of reproductive aged female residents using LARC and using all forms of prescription contraception, and the proportion of people using prescription contraception who use LARC (LARC market share). Segmented regression models were used to estimate policy effects by comparing the expected outcome values after 15 months of the policy (ie, the counterfactual, derived from trends before the policy and changes in the control) with the observed values, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated using bootstrapping.

resultsIn April 2021, 3249 (95% CI 3066 to 3391) LARC prescriptions were dispensed in British Columbia, with a declining slope trend of -17 (-30 to -7) fewer dispensed per month before the policy. Monthly LARC dispensations increased by 1050 (942 to 1487) immediately after British Columbia's policy change and saw a steady increasing trend after the policy introduction. An additional 1273 (963 to 1698) monthly LARC prescriptions were dispensed 15 months after policy implementation compared with the expected volume, representing an estimated 1.49-fold (1.34 to 1.77) increase. Dispensations for all prescription contraception (including LARC) increased by 1981 (356 to 3324) per month, representing a 1.04-fold (1.01 to 1.07) increase. Among the 859 845 female residents aged 15-49 years in the population, 9.1% were using LARC in April 2021. 15 months after the policy, 11 375 (10 273 to 13 013) more individuals were using LARC than expected without the policy, representing an additional 1.3% (1.2% to 1.5%) of the population. The policy led to an additional 1.7% (1.5% to 2.3%) of the population using any prescription contraception. 15 months after the policy, the LARC market share was 1.9% (1.2% to 2.3%) higher than expected.

conclusionsUniversal, no-cost public coverage in British Columbia increased prescription contraception use overall, driven by increased LARC use. As such, cost seems to be an important contributor to contraception use and method selection at the population level.

Indexed as

ContraceptionLong-Acting Reversible ContraceptionUniversal Health InsuranceAdolescentAdultBritish ColumbiaFemaleHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40721270
PMCPMC12301903

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.