No abstract

No abstract

Recent media coverage and case reports have highlighted women's attempts to end their pregnancies by self-inducing abortions in the United States. This study explored women's motivations for attempting self-induction of abortion. We surveyed women in clinic waiting rooms in Boston, San Francisco, New York, and a city in Texas to identify women who had attempted self-induction. We conducted 30 in-depth interviews and inductively analyzed the data. Median age at time of self-induction attempt was 19 years. Between 1979 and 2008, the women used a variety of methods, including medications, malta beverage, herbs, physical manipulation and, increasingly, misoprostol. Reasons to self-induce included a desire to avoid abortion clinics, obstacles to accessing clinical services, especially due to young age and financial barriers, and a preference for self-induction. The methods used were generally readily accessible but mostly ineffective and occasionally unsafe. Of the 23 with confirmed pregnancies, three reported a successful abortion not requiring clinical care. Only one reported medical complications in the United States. Most would not self-induce again and recommended clinic-based services. Efforts should be made to inform women about and improve access to clinic-based abortion services, particularly for medical abortion, which may appeal to women who are drawn to self-induction because it is natural, non-invasive and private.

Integration of family planning services into HIV care clinics increased use of more effective contraceptive methods with a non-significant reduction in condom use. Although no significant reduction in pregnancy incidence was observed during the study, 1 year may be too short a period of observation for this outcome.

No abstract

Objective To estimate how well a convenience sample of women from the general population could self-screen for contraindications to combined oral contraceptives using a medical checklist. Methods Women 18-49 years old (N=1,271) were recruited at two shopping malls and a flea market in El Paso, Texas, and asked first whether they thought pills were medically safe for them. They then used a checklist to determine the presence of level 3 or 4 contraindications to combined oral contraceptives according to the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria. Women were then interviewed by a blinded nurse practitioner who also measured blood pressure. Results The sensitivity of the unaided self-screen to detect true contraindications was 56.2% (95% CI: 51.7%-60.6%) and specificity 57.6% (54.0%-61.1%). The sensitivity of the checklist to detect true contraindications was 83.2% (79.5%-86.3%) and specificity 88.8% (86.3%- 90.9%). Using the checklist, 6.6% (5.2%-8.0%) of women incorrectly thought they were eligible for use when, in fact, they were contraindicated, largely due to unrecognized hypertension. Seven percent (5.4%-8.2%) of women incorrectly thought they were contraindicated when they truly were not, primarily due to misclassification of migraine headaches. In regression analysis, younger women, more educated women and Spanish-speakers were significantly more likely to correctly self-screen (p<0.05). Conclusion Self-screening for contraindications to oral contraceptives using a medical checklist is relatively accurate. Unaided screening is inaccurate and reflects common misperceptions about the safety of oral contraceptives. Over-the-counter provision of this method would likely be safe, especially for younger women and if independent blood pressure screening were encouraged.

Women's concerns about over-the-counter access to contraceptives must be addressed if this approach is to improve use and potentially help reduce the unintended pregnancy rate.

No abstract