|
Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 184-189
|
Quick starting contraception after emergency contraception: Have clinical guidelines made a difference?
|
Author keywords
[No Author keywords available]
|
Indexed keywords
COPPER INTRAUTERINE DEVICE;
LEVONORGESTREL;
ULIPRISTAL;
ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;
POSTCOITUS CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;
ARTICLE;
CLINICAL PRACTICE;
CONDOM;
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION;
FEMALE;
HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION;
HUMAN;
INTRAUTERINE CONTRACEPTIVE DEVICE;
MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY;
PRACTICE GUIDELINE;
PRESCRIPTION;
SEXUAL HEALTH;
UNITED KINGDOM;
UNPROTECTED SEX;
ADOLESCENT;
ADULT;
COMPARATIVE STUDY;
DRUG UTILIZATION;
FOLLOW UP;
MEDICAL AUDIT;
PATIENT PREFERENCE;
PREGNANCY;
PREGNANCY RATE;
PROCEDURES;
RETREATMENT;
RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;
RISK ASSESSMENT;
SCOTLAND;
TIME FACTOR;
TREATMENT OUTCOME;
YOUNG ADULT;
ADOLESCENT;
ADULT;
CONTRACEPTION, POSTCOITAL;
CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL, HORMONAL;
CONTRACEPTIVES, POSTCOITAL;
DRUG UTILIZATION;
FEMALE;
FOLLOW-UP STUDIES;
HUMANS;
LEVONORGESTREL;
MEDICAL AUDIT;
PATIENT PREFERENCE;
PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC;
PRACTICE PATTERNS, PHYSICIANS';
PREGNANCY;
PREGNANCY RATE;
RETREATMENT;
RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;
RISK ASSESSMENT;
SCOTLAND;
TIME FACTORS;
TREATMENT OUTCOME;
YOUNG ADULT;
|
EID: 84903643739
PISSN: 14711893
EISSN: None
Source Type: Journal
DOI: 10.1136/jfprhc-2013-100648 Document Type: Article |
Times cited : (3)
|
References (9)
|