Recent advances in contraception

Abigail R. A. Aiken  and James Trussell

Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract
Go to:

Introduction
In this short report, we review recent advances in the development of highly effective
reversible methods of contraception (intrauterine contraceptives and implants) and
emergency contraception. We also discuss policy advances in improving provision of the
most effective contraceptive methods in the early and immediate post-abortion and
postpartum periods.
Go to:

Intrauterine contraceptives
IUCs are in the top-tier effectiveness category of contraceptives (see Figure 1[1]) because
they require no adherence on the part of the woman; hence they are sometimes referred to as
“forgettable”. There are two types of IUC: those containing copper on the arms and/or stem
(which are labeled for use for 5 or 10 years, depending on brand) and those containing
progestin in the form of levonorgestrel. The levonorgestrel IUC Mirena® (Bayer) contains
52 mg of levonorgestrel, which is released at an initial rate of 20 μg per day and lasts for five
years. Where women have a choice between levonorgestrel and copper IUCs, the majority
choose the former [2], most likely because of its lack of negative side-effects and the
associated beneficial reduction in dysmenorrhea and menstrual blood loss. At least 30% of
women stop bleeding altogether by the end of the first year of use [3] and, among women
with heavy menstrual bleeding, overall blood loss drops by at least 90% [4]. Mirena® has
been marketed in Europe since 1990 and is the only 52 mg levonorgestrel-dose IUC
available in the United States (US). However, a clinical trial of another levonorgestrel IUC
produced by Medicines 360 is underway. In some European countries, the levonorgestrel
IUC Levosert™ (Mithra) is available. Levosert™ provides the same levonorgestrel dose as
Mirena®. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the two IUCs found no
differences in menstrual blood loss over a one-year period and no differences in expulsion
rates or major complications such as uterine perforation [5].
Figure 1.
Contraceptive failure rates during typical use
Abbreviations: IUC, intrauterine contraception.

In 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Skyla® (Bayer), the first
new IUC to be approved in 12 years. Skyla® (called Jaydess® in Europe and Canada)
contains a lower dose of levonorgestrel (13.5 mg) and is approved for up to 3 years of use
[6,7]. It is primarily marketed for use in adolescent and nulliparous women, having been
designed with a smaller size compared to existing IUCs, in terms of the transverse arms and
vertical stem. The diameter of the insertion tube is also smaller, at 3.8 mm. It has a silver
ring to distinguish it from Mirena® on ultrasound and to enable visualization by x-ray. Use
of Skyla®/Jaydess® makes initial placement easier and less painful for women; bleeding
profiles are similar [8]. A new insertion tube for Mirena® was introduced in 2012, with the
diameter reduced from 4.8 mm to 4.4 mm. Clinical practice restrictions on the placement of
IUCs in nulliparous women have been eliminated, and both nulliparous and young women
are now generally considered good candidates for any type of IUC.
Despite the excellent safety record of the levonorgestrel and copper IUCs, uterine perforation
on placement, malposition, and expulsion are possible risks. Perhaps the most innovative
recent advance in intrauterine contraception has been the development of the SCu300A
intrauterine ball (IUB), which is a three-dimensional, spherical copper IUC. It is inserted and
removed in the same fashion as two-dimensional T-shaped IUCs, but its spherical shape may
help to reduce the likelihood of perforation, malposition, and expulsion [9]. A prospective,
randomized, single-blind study of the safety and efficacy of the IUB (220 women) in
comparison to the TCu 380 (110 women) is now underway in Romania and Bulgaria. OCON
Medical recently received CE approval (signifying compliance with European Union
regulations), so that the IUBTMSCu300A can be marketed in over 30 countries including all
European Union member states.
Go to:

Progestin implants
The contraceptive implant is also in the top-tier effectiveness category of contraceptives
(see Figure 1 [1]) and, like IUCs, is not dependent on daily or pre-coital adherence on the
part of the user. The implant takes the form of a small (40 mm), flexible tube that is inserted
subdermally in the upper arm and releases 68 mg of progestin in the form of etonogestrel.
Despite their safety and efficacy, the main difficulty with providing implants (besides cost
and an adequate supply of trained providers) is ensuring correct subdermal placement by the
provider [10]. In 2010 (Europe) and 2011 (US), the original implant, Implanon® (Merck),
was replaced by the second-generation Nexplanon®, in some countries named Implanon
NXT®. These devices contain the same dose of etonogestrel but come with an improved pre-
loaded inserter, which makes correct subdermal placement easy [11]. Correct placement is
essential for easy removal. The core contains barium sulphate detectable by x-ray, allowing
providers an additional option to check for correct positioning if palpation fails. Use of the
older 2-rod levonorgestrel-releasing implants Jadelle and Sino-Implant (II) is still prevalent
in lower-income countries.
Go to:

Emergency contraception
There are two types of emergency contraception: IUCs containing copper and emergency
contraceptive pills (ECPs). ECPs are available containing both progestin and estrogen,
containing only progestin, and containing an antiprogestin (either mifepristone or ulipristal
acetate). Dedicated ECPs containing progestin and estrogen are no longer marketed (though
regular oral contraceptives containing levonorgestrel and ethinyl estradiol can be used for
emergency contraception; see http://www.not-2-late.com) because they are less effective and
cause more side effects.
More than 7,000 postcoital insertions of copper-bearing IUCs have been reported in the
literature since the practice was introduced in 1976. With only 10 known failures, this
approach has a pregnancy rate of 0.1% [12]. The effectiveness of using the levonorgestrel-20
intrauterine device (IUD) for emergency contraception is currently being studied
(see http://clinicaltrials.gov).
In a Cochrane Review of 20 Chinese randomized trials, 25 mg or 50 mg of mifepristone had
a lower failure rate than did levonorgestrel. Mifepristone was tolerated more easily but the
delay in menses was greater in 13 trials that reported side effects [13]. Low dose (<25 mg)
mifepristone was more effective than levonorgestrel in a meta-analysis of nine Chinese, one
UK [14] and one multinational [15] randomized trials, but mifepristone was not superior in
the only four high-quality studies [13]. Mifepristone is not widely used outside China and
Russia for political reasons; in larger doses (200 mg), it can be used with misoprostol to
induce abortion. Therefore, efforts to develop a new ECP have focused on another
antiprogestin.
In 2009, ellaOne® (HRA Pharma), containing a 30mg single dose of the second-generation
antiprogestin ulipristal acetate (UPA), became available in Europe, and the same pill ella®
was approved by the FDA in 2010. These are the most effective ECP options in the US and
Europe. In one randomized study, UPA prevented significantly more pregnancies than did
levonorgestrel when the ECPs were taken 72-120 hours after unprotected intercourse [16].
Another randomized trial compared the efficacy of levonorgestrel and UPA when taken up to
72 hours after unprotected intercourse [17]. When data from these two trials were pooled,
UPA was found to have lower failure rates: odds ratio for pregnancy was 65% lower in the
first 24 hours, 42% lower up to 72 hours, and 45% lower up to 120 hours for UPA compared
with levonorgestrel [18]. The reason seems to be that when ovulation is imminent, UPA is
more effective than levonorgestrel in delaying it. By the time the leading follicle reaches 15–
17 mm, follicular rupture is prevented within 5 days of administration no more often after
levonorgestrel administration than after placebo administration [19]. In contrast, when taken
when the leading follicle reaches 18–20 mm (and ovulation should occur within 48 hours)
and the probability of conception exceeds 30%, UPA prevents follicular rupture within 5
days of administration in 59% of cycles, compared with 0% in placebo cycles [20]. The
antiprogestins UPA and mifepristone are probably equally effective.
Further analysis of data from the two randomized trials of UPA and levonorgestrel showed a
rapid decrease of efficacy with increasing weight, reaching the point where it appeared no
different from pregnancy rates expected among women not using emergency contraception
(EC) at 70 kg, compared with 88 kg for UPA [18]. The label for NorLevo (a 1.5 mg
levonorgestrel EC product available outside the US) was changed in Europe in November
2013 to reflect findings from further analyses of these data; the label states: “In clinical trials,
contraceptive efficacy was reduced in women weighing 75 kg or more, and levonorgestrel
was not effective in women who weighed more than 80 kg” [21]. However, the European
Medicines Agency, after reviewing additional data from three World Health Organization
(WHO) trials [22–24] that did not find reduced efficacy with increasing weight or body mass
index (BMI), removed that statement from the Norlevo label in July 2014 [25].
Go to:

Post-abortion contraception
There is now convincing evidence that immediate post-abortion placement of IUCs and
implants leads to a reduction in subsequent unintended pregnancies [26,27] and repeat
abortions [28–30]. At the time of the abortion procedure, many women may be highly
motivated to obtain a highly effective method and prevent another unintended pregnancy,
and the timing is convenient for both the woman and provider. The 2010 US Medical
Eligibility Criteria (US MEC) for Contraceptive Use classifies placement of levonorgestrel-
releasing implants as category 1 (no restrictions on use) immediately following first and
second trimester abortion, and levonorgestrel-releasing IUCs and copper-IUCs as category 1
following first trimester abortion and category 2 (advantages outweigh theoretical or proven
risks) following second trimester abortion [31]. For women undergoing medical abortion,
immediate provision of IUCs is not possible, but it has recently been demonstrated that early
insertion (5–9 days post-mifepristone administration) does not result in a higher incidence of
expulsion compared to delayed (routine) insertion at 3–4 weeks. Women were also more
likely to return for early as opposed to delayed insertion [32].
Currently, the major barrier to providing immediate post-abortion IUCs and implants in the
US is Medicaid reimbursement policy. In many states, provider billing for method placement
on the same day as the abortion procedure is not allowed, thus requiring women to return to
the clinic on a different day for a separate visit [33]. Since up to 50% of women do not attend
a scheduled follow-up appointment after an abortion [34], such a requirement may constitute
a significant burden in terms of time and financial resources, while at the same time
introducing inefficiency into the delivery of care. Should all states adopt a same-day
Medicaid reimbursement policy for immediate post-abortion IUCs and implants, estimates
suggest that the attributable reduction in unintended pregnancies could result in savings to
Medicaid of $70 million per year [35]. In the US and in other countries, investment in
provider training, effective contraceptive counseling, and willingness to cover the costs of
the devices are all necessary to make post-abortion provision of the most effective reversible
methods possible.
Go to:

Postpartum contraception
Early postpartum access to highly effective reversible contraceptives, both IUCs and the
implant, is key to helping women prevent unintended pregnancy [36]. In light of recent
evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of IUC and implant placement immediately
postpartum [37,38], there has been much interest in increasing access to these methods prior
to hospital discharge. The 2010 US MEC classifies immediate postpartum placement of
levonorgestrel-releasing IUCs and implants among breastfeeding women as category 2.
Implants among women not breastfeeding and copper-releasing IUCs are classified as
category 1 [31].
Immediate postpartum placement is an attractive option for many reasons: high motivation to
prevent repeat pregnancy or to space pregnancies optimally; convenient timing for the
woman and the provider; and the ability to overcome the logistical obstacles that arise
following hospital discharge. In the United Kingdom, women are typically not provided with
contraception before discharge and must wait until their postpartum checkup, typically six
weeks after hospital discharge. By this time, many women will have resumed intercourse
and, if ovulating, already be at risk for unintended pregnancy. In the US, there is the
additional problem of some types of health insurance having a limited window of coverage
following delivery. For women whose deliveries were covered by Medicaid, coverage
expires 60 days post-delivery, leaving little time for contraceptive counseling, ensuring a
method is available, and scheduling an additional appointment for placement. Immediate
postpartum placement of IUCs and implants, in addition to being safe and effective, would
circumvent these problems.
Despite these advantages, hospitals in the US have a financial disincentive to provide
immediate postpartum IUCs and implants. For women whose deliveries are covered by
private insurance or Medicaid, hospitals receive a global fee for all delivery-related care.
While postpartum sterilization may be billed separately from the global fee, postpartum IUCs
and implants are not eligible for separate reimbursement in most states. Since their provision
would involve deducting between $600 and $775 (based upon wholesale costs) from the
global fee, it is not in the financial interests of hospitals to provide them.
Yet, recent policy changes offer some hope for increasing postpartum access to the most
effective methods in the future. To date, separate billing for postpartum implants and IUCs
for women covered by Medicaid has been adopted in ten states (Colorado, Georgia, Iowa,
Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and California).
These progressive policy changes required only regulatory adjustments and short-term
investments; no legislative action was necessary. It is hoped that the next advance in
improving contraceptive access will be adoption of these policy changes across all forty
remaining states. Such action would both save healthcare dollars and help women prevent
future unintended pregnancies.
Go to:

Conclusion
Recent advances in the development of highly effective reversible methods of contraception
have focused mainly on improving the ease of device insertion and removal, making these
methods more acceptable to young and nulliparous women. There is a compelling rationale
for immediate postpartum and post-abortion access to IUCs and implants and policy progress
towards improving access in the US would require only regulatory changes at the state health
services level. With regard to developments in emergency contraception, ulipristal acetate
has been found to be more effective than levonorgestrel in delaying imminent ovulation, but
copper IUCs are the most effective option for women who are willing to use them.
Go to:

Abbreviations

EC Emergency contraception
ECP emergency contraceptive pill

FDA Food & Drug Administration

IUB intrauterine ball

IUC intrauterine contraception

UPA ulipristal acetate

Go to:

Notes
The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found
at: http://f1000.com/prime/reports/m/6/113
Go to:

Notes
Go to:

Disclosures
This work was supported in part by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development grant for Infrastructure for Population Research at
Princeton University, Grant R24HD047879. James Trussell is a consultant to Bayer and is a
member of Merck and Teva advisory boards. During the initial preparation of the
manuscript, Abigail Aiken was supported by a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development Predoctoral Fellowship under grant number
F31HD079182.
Go to:

References
1. Trussell J, Guthrie KA. Choosing a contraceptive: efficacy, safety, and personal
considerations. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W, Kowal D, Policar M,
editors. Contracetive Technology: Twentieth Revised Edition. New York: Ardent Media;
2011. pp. 45–74.
2. Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Mullersman JL, Peipert JF. The Contraceptive
CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2010;203:115. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.017. e1-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/723737307
3. Sivin I, Alvarez F, Diaz J, Diaz S, el Mahgoub S, Coutinho E, Brache V, Diaz MM,
Faundes A, Pavez M. Intrauterine contraception with copper and with levonorgestrel: a
randomized study of the TCu 380Ag and levonorgestrel 20 mcg/day
devices. Contraception. 1984;30:443–56. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(84)90036-2. [PubMed]
[CrossRef]
4. Kaunitz AM, Bissonnette F, Monteiro I, Lukkari-Lax E, Muysers C, Jensen JT.
Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or medroxyprogesterone for heavy menstrual
bleeding: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:625–32. doi:
10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181ec622b. [PubMed] [CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/5293959
5. Mawet M, Nollevaux F, Nizet D, Wijzen F, Gordenne V, Tasev N, Segedi D, Marinescu
B, Enache A, Parhomenko V, Frankenne F, Foidart J. Impact of a new levonorgestrel
intrauterine system, Levosert(®), on heavy menstrual bleeding: results of a one-year
randomised controlled trial. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19:169–79. doi:
10.3109/13625187.2014.894184. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/723893496
6. Nelson A, Apter D, Hauck B, Schmelter T, Rybowski S, Rosen K, Gemzell-Danielsson K.
Two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled
trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1205–13. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000019. [PubMed]
[CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/718178561
7. Apter D, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Hauck B, Rosen K, Zurth C. Pharmacokinetics of two
low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems and effects on ovulation rate and
cervical function: pooled analyses of phase II and III studies. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1656–
62. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.004.e1-4. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
8. Gemzell-Danielsson K, Schellschmidt I, Apter D. A randomized, phase II study describing
the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing
intrauterine contraceptive systems and Mirena. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:616–22. doi:
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.003. e1-3. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/13759956
9. Baram I, Weinstein A, Trussell J. The IUB, a newly invented IUD: a brief
report. Contraception. 2014;89:139–41. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.017. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
10. Rowlands S, Sujan M, Cooke M. A risk management approach to the design of
contraceptive implants. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2010;36:191–5. doi:
10.1783/147118910793048593. [PubMed] [CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/723896511
11. Mansour D, Mommers E, Teede H, Sollie-Eriksen B, Graesslin O, Ahrendt H, Gemzell-
Danielsson K. Clinician satisfaction and insertion characteristics of a new applicator to insert
radiopaque Implanon: an open-label, noncontrolled, multicenter
trial. Contraception. 2010;82:243–9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.007. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/5353956
12. Cleland K, Zhu H, Goldstuck N, Cheng L, Trussell J. The efficacy of intrauterine devices
for emergency contraception: a systematic review of 35 years of experience. Hum
Reprod. 2012;27:1994–2000. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des140. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/717947950
13. Cheng L, Che Y, Gülmezoglu AM. Interventions for emergency contraception. Cochrane
Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD001324. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub4. [PubMed]
[CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/717954962
14. Hamoda H, Ashok PW, Stalder C, Flett GMM, Kennedy E, Templeton A. A randomized
trial of mifepristone (10 mg) and levonorgestrel for emergency contraception. Obstet
Gynecol. 2004;104:1307–13. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000146286.60138.47. [PubMed]
[CrossRef]
15. Hertzen H von, Piaggio G, Ding J, Chen J, Song S, Bártfai G, Ng E, Gemzell-Danielsson
K, Oyunbileg A, Wu S, Cheng W, Lüdicke F, Pretnar-Darovec A, Kirkman R, Mittal S,
Khomassuridze A, Apter D, Peregoudov A. Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of
levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1803–10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11767-3.[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
16. Fine P, Mathé H, Ginde S, Cullins V, Morfesis J, Gainer E. Ulipristal acetate taken 48-
120 hours after intercourse for emergency contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115:257–63.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c8e2aa. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/2820956
17. Creinin MD, Schlaff W, Archer DF, Wan L, Frezieres R, Thomas M, Rosenberg M,
Higgins J. Progesterone receptor modulator for emergency contraception: a randomized
controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1089–97. doi:
10.1097/01.AOG.0000239440.02284.45. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/1063716
18. Glasier AF, Cameron ST, Fine PM, Logan , Susan JS, Casale W, van Horn J, Sogor L,
Blithe DL, Scherrer B, Mathe H, Jaspart A, Ulmann A, Gainer E. Ulipristal acetate versus
levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a randomised non-inferiority trial and meta-
analysis. Lancet. 2010;375:555–62. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60101-8. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/2063969
19. Croxatto HB, Brache V, Pavez M, Cochon L, Forcelledo ML, Alvarez F, Massai R,
Faundes A, Salvatierra AM. Pituitary-ovarian function following the standard levonorgestrel
emergency contraceptive dose or a single 0.75-mg dose given on the days preceding
ovulation. Contraception. 2004;70:442–50. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2004.05.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
20. Brache V, Cochon L, Jesam C, Maldonado R, Salvatierra AM, Levy DP, Gainer E,
Croxatto HB. Immediate pre-ovulatory administration of 30 mg ulipristal acetate
significantly delays follicular rupture. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2256–63. doi:
10.1093/humrep/deq157. [PubMed] [CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/7432956
21. Summary of Product Characteristics for Norlevo 1.5mg
tablet. http://www.medicines.ie/medicine/11933/SPC/Norlevo+1.5mg+tablet/
22. Hertzen H von, Piaggio G, Ding J, Chen J, Song S, Bártfai G, Ng E, Gemzell-Danielsson
K, Oyunbileg A, Wu S, Cheng W, Lüdicke F, Pretnar-Darovec A, Kirkman R, Mittal S,
Khomassuridze A, Apter D, Peregoudov A. Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of
levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised
trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1803–10. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11767-3.[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
23. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Randomised controlled
trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for
emergency contraception. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility
Regulation. Lancet. 1998;352:428–33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)05145-9. [PubMed]
[CrossRef]
24. Dada OA, Godfrey EM, Piaggio G, Hertzen H Von. A randomized, double-blind,
noninferiority study to compare two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception
in Nigeria. Contraception. 2010;82:373–8. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2010.06.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
25. Press Release: European Medicines Agency: Levonorgestrel and ulipristal remain
suitable emergency contraceptives for all women, regardless of
bodyweight. http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?
curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2014/07/news_detail_002145.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580
04d5c1
26. Reeves MF, Smith KJ, Creinin MD. Contraceptive effectiveness of immediate compared
with delayed insertion of intrauterine devices after abortion: a decision analysis. Obstet
Gynecol. 2007;109:1286–94. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000265336.14160.cc. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/724195115
27. Langston AM, Joslin-Roher SL, Westhoff CL. Immediate postabortion access to IUDs,
implants and DMPA reduces repeat pregnancy within 1 year in a New York City
practice. Contraception. 2014;89:103–8. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2013.10.014. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/718258739
28. Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Reeves MF, Foster-Rosales A. Impact of immediate
postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat
abortion. Contraception. 2008;78:143–8. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/1120384
29. Roberts H, Silva M, Xu S. Post abortion contraception and its effect on repeat abortions
in Auckland, New Zealand. Contraception. 2010;82:260–5. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2010.03.003. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/722794907
30. Cameron ST, Glasier A, Chen ZE, Johnstone A, Dunlop C, Heller R. Effect of
contraception provided at termination of pregnancy and incidence of subsequent termination
of pregnancy. BJOG. 2012;119:1074–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03407.x. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/722690497
31. U S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm
Rep. 2010;59:1–86.[PubMed] http://f1000.com/prime/3678967
32. Sääv I, Stephansson O, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Early versus delayed insertion of
intrauterine contraception after medical abortion - a randomized controlled trial. PLoS
ONE. 2012;7:e48948. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048948. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/717964616
33. Thompson Kirsten MJ, Speidel JJ, Saporta V, Waxman NJ, Harper CC. Contraceptive
policies affect post-abortion provision of long-acting reversible
contraception. Contraception. 2011;83:41–7. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2010.06.008. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/722794862
34. Grossman D, Ellertson C, Grimes DA, Walker D. Routine follow-up visits after first-
trimester induced abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;103:738–45. doi:
10.1097/01.AOG.0000115511.14004.19. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/724593174
35. Tsao T, Yunzal-Butler C, Sackoff J, Kaplan D. Medicaid reimbursement for immediate
post-abortion provision of long-acting reversible contraception reduces both unintended
pregnancies and health care expenditures. Contraception 2014. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2014.05.020. [Epub ahead of print] [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/725230051
36. Teal SB. Postpartum contraception: optimizing interpregnancy
intervals. Contraception. 2014;89:487–8. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.013. [PubMed] [CrossRef]
37. Kapp N, Curtis KM. Intrauterine device insertion during the postpartum period: a
systematic review. Contraception. 2009;80:327–36. doi:
10.1016/j.contraception.2009.03.024. [PubMed]
[CrossRef]http://f1000.com/prime/722795032
 38. Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, Van Vliet Huib Aam, Stanwood NL. Immediate
post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:CD003036.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003036.pub2. [PubMed]
[CrossRef] http://f1000.com/prime/721155469

Articles from F1000Prime Reports are provided here courtesy of Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Formats:
 Article
 | 
 PubReader
 | 
 ePub (beta)
 | 
 PDF (1.1M)
 | 
 Citation

Share

  Facebook