Ziebland S
ICRF General Practice Research Group, University of Oxford Division of Public Health & Primary Health Care, Institute of Health Sciences, Headington, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Nov;49(10):1409-17. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00249-x.
Emergency contraception (EC) can be used up to 72 h after sex to prevent pregnancy. Internationally there is wide variation in the availability of EC. In the USA it has only recently (1997) won approval from the FDA, while the UK and New Zealand have seen calls for over the counter availability. In recent years surveys, editorials and opinion pieces in medical journals have pointed out that increased access to EC could help to tackle the unwanted pregnancy rate, especially among teenagers, and concluded that lack of knowledge of EC is the major barrier to use. However, women in a UK study have expressed concerns that it is not safe to use the method repeatedly and cited general practitioners (GPs) as one of the sources of this belief, which contradicts the professional guidelines and the rationale for de-regulation. A subsequent study sought to seek the views of GPs about prescribing EC and explored reasons for the gap between the views of women using UK family planning services, GPs and professionals at the public policy level. Data from two studies are presented. In the first study, 53 women seeking emergency contraception were interviewed at two family planning clinics. In the second, semi-structured telephone interviews were completed with a random sample of 76 GPs from three English health authorities. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted using the constant comparative method. EC was rarely described, by users or GPs, as an acceptable contraceptive option. Consultations for emergency contraception were viewed by GPs as an important opportunity to discuss the woman's future contraceptive needs. Repeated use of EC was not encouraged and a discussion of contraceptive needs could range from a mild enquiry to quite forceful messages contrasting EC to 'regular' and 'proper' methods. The medical literature suggests that EC is underused because of a lack of awareness. Commentators have recommended educating health professionals and women about EC and increasing availability through de-regulation. The data presented in this paper show that British GPs are not enthusiastic about the de-regulation of EC, but the reasons are complex and related to concerns about planned contraception and sexual behaviour. It is suggested that it may be because EC is used after sex that it seems to occupy an uncomfortable place within the contraceptive repertoire.
紧急避孕可在性行为后72小时内使用以防止怀孕。在国际上,紧急避孕的可及性存在很大差异。在美国,它直到最近(1997年)才获得美国食品药品监督管理局的批准,而在英国和新西兰,人们呼吁将其非处方销售。近年来,医学期刊上的调查、社论和评论文章指出,增加紧急避孕的可及性有助于降低意外怀孕率,尤其是在青少年中,并得出结论认为,对紧急避孕缺乏了解是使用的主要障碍。然而,英国一项研究中的女性表示担心反复使用这种方法不安全,并将全科医生列为这种观念的来源之一,这与专业指南以及放宽管制的理由相矛盾。随后的一项研究试图了解全科医生对开具紧急避孕药物的看法,并探究使用英国家庭计划服务的女性、全科医生以及公共政策层面的专业人士之间观点存在差距的原因。本文呈现了两项研究的数据。在第一项研究中,在两家计划生育诊所对53名寻求紧急避孕的女性进行了访谈。在第二项研究中,对来自三个英国卫生当局的76名全科医生进行了随机抽样的半结构化电话访谈。访谈进行了录音、转录,并使用持续比较法进行了主题分析。使用者和全科医生很少将紧急避孕描述为一种可接受的避孕选择。全科医生将紧急避孕咨询视为讨论女性未来避孕需求的重要契机。不鼓励反复使用紧急避孕,对避孕需求的讨论范围可以从温和询问到相当强硬地将紧急避孕与“常规”和“合适”方法进行对比的信息。医学文献表明,由于缺乏认知,紧急避孕未得到充分使用。评论者建议对卫生专业人员和女性进行紧急避孕方面的教育,并通过放宽管制来增加其可及性。本文所呈现的数据表明,英国的全科医生对紧急避孕的放宽管制并不热心,但其原因很复杂,与对计划生育和性行为的担忧有关。有人认为,这可能是因为紧急避孕是在性行为后使用,所以在避孕方法中似乎处于一个尴尬的位置。