We have located links that may give you full text access.
Medical contraindications to combined hormonal contraceptive use among women using methods prescribed by a pharmacist.
Contraception 2021 November
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether pharmacist prescription of combined hormonal contraception is associated with inappropriate prescription to women with medical contraindications.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrosopective cohort study of all short-acting, hormonal contraceptive users (pill, patch, ring, injectable) in Oregon's All Payer All Claims database from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. Our primary outcome was the proportion of women receiving a combined hormonal method who had a Medical Eligibility Category (MEC) 3 or 4 condition. We identified potential contraindications using International Classification of Disease codes. We conducted descriptive analyses of contraindication prevalence and prescription error rate by prescriber type. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to test the association between pharmacist prescriber and population characteristics.
RESULTS: Our study sample consisted of 439,240 contraceptive users, of which 3782 (0.86%) received their prescriptions from a pharmacist. Women aged 25 to 29 were more likely than women over age 35 to receive contraception from a pharmacist (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.44-3.08). Pharmacist prescriptions were slightly less likely in rural areas (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) and among women on Medicaid, relative to those with commercial insurance (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.24). Among women given contraception in a clinical setting, 4.25% had evidence of an MEC 3 or 4 contraindication, compared to 0.9% for women seen by a pharmacist. Rates of prescribing a combined method to women with a potential contraindication were not meaningfully different by prescriber type (2.16% for clinicians vs 0.74% for pharmacists).
CONCLUSION: Rates of contraceptive prescribing with a contraindication were relatively low and did not differ between clinicians and pharmacists.
IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacists can safely screen for medical contraindications to combined hormonal contraception.
STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrosopective cohort study of all short-acting, hormonal contraceptive users (pill, patch, ring, injectable) in Oregon's All Payer All Claims database from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. Our primary outcome was the proportion of women receiving a combined hormonal method who had a Medical Eligibility Category (MEC) 3 or 4 condition. We identified potential contraindications using International Classification of Disease codes. We conducted descriptive analyses of contraindication prevalence and prescription error rate by prescriber type. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to test the association between pharmacist prescriber and population characteristics.
RESULTS: Our study sample consisted of 439,240 contraceptive users, of which 3782 (0.86%) received their prescriptions from a pharmacist. Women aged 25 to 29 were more likely than women over age 35 to receive contraception from a pharmacist (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.44-3.08). Pharmacist prescriptions were slightly less likely in rural areas (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) and among women on Medicaid, relative to those with commercial insurance (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.19-0.24). Among women given contraception in a clinical setting, 4.25% had evidence of an MEC 3 or 4 contraindication, compared to 0.9% for women seen by a pharmacist. Rates of prescribing a combined method to women with a potential contraindication were not meaningfully different by prescriber type (2.16% for clinicians vs 0.74% for pharmacists).
CONCLUSION: Rates of contraceptive prescribing with a contraindication were relatively low and did not differ between clinicians and pharmacists.
IMPLICATIONS: Pharmacists can safely screen for medical contraindications to combined hormonal contraception.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app