Overstating the cost savings from contraceptive use

European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 219-221

  Trussell, James ^a,b  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HULL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Contraceptive use; Cost saving; Long acting reversible contraceptives; Mistimed birth; Unintended pregnancy

Indexed keywords

INJECTABLE CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

BIRTH CONTROL; CONTRACEPTION; CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; COST CONTROL; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DRUG IMPLANTATION; EDITORIAL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE; ORAL CONTRACEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UNITED KINGDOM; UNPLANNED PREGNANCY;

CONTRACEPTIVE AGENTS; COST SAVINGS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY, UNWANTED; STATE MEDICINE;

EID: 52949135176     PISSN: 13625187     EISSN: 14730782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13625180802359263     Document Type: Editorial

References (11)

1. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health. Long-acting reversible contraception: The effective and appropriate use of long-acting reversible contraception. London (UK): Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) 2005. Available at http://www.nice.org. uk/Guidance/CG30/Guidance/pdf/English
2. National cost impact report. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2005. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/ CG30/CostReport/pdf/English
3. Trussell J. The cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States. Contraception 2007;75:168-70.
4. Ashraf T, Arnold SB, Maxfield M Jr. Cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel subdermal implants. Comparison with other contraceptive methods available in the United States. J Reprod Med 1994;39:791-8.
5. Ortmeier BG, Sauer KA, Langley PC, Bealmear BK. A cost-benefit analysis of four hormonal contraceptive methods. Clin Ther 1994;16:707-13.
6. Hughes D, McGuire A. The cost-effectiveness of family planning service provision. J Public Health Med 1996;18:189-96.
7. Phillips CJ. Economic analysis of long-term reversible contraceptives. Focus on Implanon. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;17:209-21.
8. Varney SJ, Guest JF. Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-Provera, Implanon, and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2004;22:1141-51.
9. Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Hagerty CG, et al. Costs and net health effects of contraceptive methods. Contraception 2004;69:447-59.
10. Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Speroff L, et al. Cost-effectiveness and contraceptive effectiveness of the transdermal contraceptive patch. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1-9.
11. Mavranezouli I. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: Analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Human Reprod 2008;23:1338-45.