Evaluation of the usefulness of the 'hormones with optional pelvic exam' programme offered at a family planning clinic

European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 307-313

  Armstrong, Laura ^a,b   Zabel, Erin ^b   Beydoun, Hind A ^a  

^a EASTERN VIRGINIA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast examination; Contraception; Effectiveness; Pap smear; Pelvic examination; Unintended pregnancy

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST EXAMINATION; CONTRACEPTION; FAMILY PLANNING; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HEALTH SURVEY; HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION; HUMAN; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PELVIC EXAMINATION; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEXUAL INTERCOURSE; UNITED STATES;

CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL; FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGICAL EXAMINATION; HUMANS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; VIRGINIA;

EID: 84863861309     PISSN: 13625187     EISSN: 14730782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/13625187.2012.672665     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Stewart FH, Harper CC, Ellertson CE, e t al. Clinical breast and pelvic examination requirements for hormonal contraception: Current practice vs evidence. JAMA 2001;285:2232-9.
2. Barot S. Making the case for a 'contraceptive convenience' agenda. Guttmacher Policy Rev 2008;11:11-6.
3. Landau S, Besinque K, Chung F, et al. Pharmacist interest in and attitudes toward direct pharmacy access to hormonal contraception in the United States. J Am Pharm Assoc 2009;49:43-50.
4. Landau SC, Tapias MP, McGhee BT. Birth control within reach: A national survey on women's attitudes toward and interest in pharmacy access to hormonal contraception. Contraception 2006;74:463-70. (Pubitemid 46037536)
5. Harper C, Balistreri E, Boggess J, et al. Provision of hormonal contraceptives without a mandatory pelvic examination: The first stop demonstration project. Fam Plann Perspect 2001;33:13-8.
6. Sonnenberg FA, Burkman RT, Hagerty CG, et al. Costs and net health effects of contraceptive methods. Contraception 2004;69:447-59. (Pubitemid 38638745)
7. Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, et al. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception 2009;79:5-14.
8. Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, et al., eds. Contraceptive technology. New York: Ardent Media 2007.
9. World Health Organisation. World Health Organisation effectiveness chart. Accessed 20 February 2012 from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/ 9780978856373-eng-Chapter13-end.pdf., 2011
10. Fiddes P, Scott A, Fletcher J, et al. Attitudes towards pelvic examination and chaperones: A questionnaire survey of patients and providers. Contraception 2003;67:313-7. (Pubitemid 36398517)
11. Larsen SB, Kragstrup J. Experiences of the first pelvic examination in a random sample of Danish teenagers. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1995;74:137-41.
12. Foster DG, Rostovtseva DP, Brindis CD, et al. Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program. Am J Public Health 2009;99:446-51.
13. 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. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1338-45. (Pubitemid 351770574)