PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16707277

Evidence based contraceptive choices.

Abstract

People who attend for contraceptive advice have usually formulated an idea of the type of contraceptive that will suit them best. They may wish to use a method that is long, short or medium acting. These are defined as follows: Long-acting method requires renewal no more frequently than every 3 months (e.g. injectable or intrauterine). Short-acting method used daily or with every act of intercourse (e.g. pills, condoms) Medium-acting method requires renewal weekly or monthly (e.g. ring, patch). For men the choice is limited to condoms or vasectomy. Some women do not wish to use hormonal preparations or have an intrauterine device (IUD) or implant inserted. There may also be cultural influences making certain methods of contraception unacceptable. Each of these factors influences the final decision of which method of contraception is decided upon. In addition to taking a full medical and sexual history to identify any risks to the individual's health, which might be increased by a particular contraceptive, time must be spent discussing the options available. It is important to ensure that there is a full understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of each method. The most successful contraceptive method is likely to be the one that the woman (or man) chooses, rather than the one the clinician chooses for them. Access for women to contraception can be improved by having convenient clinic times and service developments such as nurse prescribing and Patient Group Directions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Alison Scott, Anna Glasier. 2006-05-16. Evidence based contraceptive choices.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2006.03.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

A compensation election for binary social choice.

We report experimental results examining the properties of a bidding mechanism, the "Compensation Election," which is designed to implement a simple binary choice between two options. We may think of the group decision problem as a choice between a new rule and the status quo. The rule and the status quo are each common outcomes that apply across all individuals, but the value or cost that they induce on each individual differs according to each individual's circumstances: some gain, some lose, and others are unaffected by a change to the new from the old. Rather than casting votes, each subject submits a bid reflecting his willingness to pay to induce the group to select one option and the amount he wishes to be paid if the alternative option is selected. The Compensation Election chooses the option that receives the highest sum of bids. We find that, although the Compensation Election allows subjects to strategically bid above their value (or even for the option they do not prefer), such behavior is not the norm. We also find that subjects' bids more truthfully reveal their values when there are more bidders in the election.

Choice Behavior↗

The effects of expanding patient choice of provider on waiting times: evidence from a policy experiment.

Long waiting times for inpatient treatment in the UK National Health Service have been a source of popular and political concern, and therefore a target for policy initiatives. In the London Patient Choice Project, patients at risk of breaching inpatient waiting time targets were offered the choice of an alternative hospital with a guaranteed shorter wait. This paper develops a simple theoretical model of the effect of greater patient choice on waiting times. It then uses a difference in difference econometric methodology to estimate the impact of the London choice project on ophthalmology waiting times. In line with the model predictions, the project led to shorter average waiting times in the London region and a convergence in waiting times amongst London hospitals.

Choice Behavior↗