Objective To determine the incidence of subsequent termination of pregnancy (TOP) within a 2-year period in relation to the method of contraception provided to women following the index TOP.Design Case note review.Setting NHS hospital TOP service, Edinburgh, UK.Population Nine hundred and eighty-six women requesting a TOP in 2008.Methods Case notes were reviewed to determine the contraception provided at index TOP and whether women had subsequent TOP at the same hospital within 2 years.Main outcome measures Incidence of subsequent TOP within 2 years amongst women receiving different contraceptive methods.Results One hundred and twenty-one women (12.3%) of the 986 who attended the clinic requesting a TOP returned requesting another TOP in the subsequent 2 years. Both intrauterine contraception and the progestogen-only implant were associated with the lowest incidence of subsequent TOP. Using the combined oral contraceptive pill as the reference method, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of a further TOP within 2 years with intrauterine contraception and the implant were OR = 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01-0.41; P < 0.001) and OR = 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.23; P < 0.001), respectively. Women choosing the implant were significantly younger than those choosing the intrauterine method (P < 0.001).Conclusion Women undergoing a TOP who wish to avoid another unintended pregnancy should consider immediate initiation of either intrauterine contraception or the progestogen-only implant. Service providers should be trained and supported to provide these methods to women at the time of TOP.

Little is known about the impact of gender-affirming hormones on breast or reproductive cancers in trans people.

This study demonstrated that although contraception is discussed at a routine 6-week postpartum visit with a GP, there are delays for women wishing to commence LARC that create scope for unintended pregnancy. Strategies to facilitate access to LARC postpartum should be explored.

IntroductionReduced funding to contraceptive services in the UK is resulting in restricted access for women. Pharmacists are already embedded in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care in the UK and could provide an alternative way for women to access contraception. The aim of this study was to determine the views of UK contraception providers about community pharmacist-led contraception provision.MethodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed to healthcare professionals at two UK SRH events, asking respondents about: (1) the use of patient group directions (PGDs) for pharmacist provision of oral contraception (OC); (2) the sale of OC as a pharmacy medicine or general sales list medicine; (3) the perceived impact of pharmacy provision of OC on broader SRH outcomes; and (4) if other contraceptive methods should be provided in pharmacies.ResultsOf 240 questionnaires distributed, 174 (72.5%) were returned. Respondents largely supported pharmacy-led provision of all non-uterine methods of contraception, excluding the contraceptive implant. Provision of the progestogen-only pill by PGD was most strongly supported (78% supported initiation). Respondents felt that the use of bridging (temporary) contraception would improve (103/144, 71.5%), use of effective contraception would increase (81/141, 57.4%), and unintended pregnancies would decline (71/130, 54.6%); but that use of long-acting reversible contraception would decrease (86/143, 60.1%). Perceived barriers included pharmacists’ capacity and competency to provide a full contraception consultation, safeguarding concerns, and women having to pay for contraception.ConclusionsUK SRH providers were largely supportive of community pharmacy-led provision of contraception, with training and referral pathways being required to support contraception delivery by pharmacists.

No abstract