Search

Purpose: To show the impact of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) associated with co-administration of enzyme-inducing (EI) antiseizure medications and oral contraceptives (OCs) on the annual number of unintended pregnancies, their outcomes, and their associated costs in the United States (US)., Methods: A Microsoft Excel pregnancy-outcomes model was developed to determine the impact of DDIs in women who take an OC as well as an EI antiseizure medication known to lower the effectiveness of the OC in preventing pregnancy. The model compared the number of unintended pregnancies, the expected pregnancy outcomes, and associated costs in women taking an OC and an EI medication with a matched cohort of women who took an OC and an enzyme-neutral (EN) antiseizure medication that is known not to interact with OCs. The model perspectives were patients and third-party payers in the US. Unintended pregnancy rates, pregnancy outcomes, and cost inputs for the model were taken from published studies., Results: The results of the analysis showed an estimated increase in the annual number of unintended pregnancies in the US of 503 (a change from 1151 to 1654), an increase of 44.7%, for the estimated 71,922 women currently taking an OC plus an EI medication in the US when compared with a matched cohort taking an OC plus an EN medication. This resulted in an estimated annual healthcare cost increase of $3 million, which is an increase of 5.5% in the annual costs for contraception and pregnancy care. A scenario analysis showed that the annual number of unintended pregnancies could be lower (575 vs 1654) for a matched cohort of women taking EI medications and using a copper intrauterine device, a highly effective and nonhormonal form of contraception, rather than an OC., Conclusions: Physicians treating women of reproductive age for epilepsy who wish to avoid pregnancy should consider the potential for DDIs that might result in unintended pregnancies. Thus, physicians should alert women using EI medications for epilepsy control to the increased potential for unintended pregnancies if they use OCs for contraception., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Seri Anderson, Josephine Mauskopf, Sandra Talbird, Annesha White, and Meenakshi Srinivasan have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) contraceptive effectiveness poster with a more patient-centered poster on factors affecting the likelihood of using effective contraceptives., Methods: The posters were tested in a randomized controlled trial. Women were eligible if they were aged 18-44 years, could speak and read English, were not pregnant or trying to conceive, and had engaged in vaginal intercourse in the past 3 months. An online survey administered through Amazon Mechanical Turk was used to collect baseline and immediate follow-up data on three primary outcomes: contraceptive knowledge (measured using the Contraceptive Knowledge Assessment), perceived pregnancy risk, and the effectiveness of the contraceptive the woman intended to use in the next year. Subgroup analyses were conducted in women with prior pregnancy scares, low numeracy, and no current contraceptive. Within- and between-group differences were compared for the two randomized groups., Results: From January 26 to February 13, 2018, 2,930 people were screened and 990 randomized. For the primary outcomes, the only significant result was that the patient-centered poster produced a greater improvement in contraceptive knowledge than the CDC poster (P<.001). Relative to baseline, both posters significantly improved contraceptive knowledge (CDC +3.6, patient-centered +6.4 percentage points, P<.001) and a constructed score measuring the effectiveness of the contraceptive that women intended to use in the next year (CDC and patient-centered +3 percentage points, P<.01). This is equivalent to 1-17 of every 100 women who viewed a poster changing their intentions in favor of a more effective contraceptive., Conclusion: This study suggests that both posters educate women about contraception and may reduce unplanned pregnancy risk by improving contraceptive intentions. Of the three primary outcomes, the patient-centered poster performs significantly better than the CDC poster at increasing contraceptive knowledge., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03372369.

Objectives: To refine the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s contraceptive education poster using patient-centered design., Study Design: We conducted cognitive interviews with 26 women aged 18-44 living in North Carolina who spoke and read English and had ever had sex. We interviewed women about both a CDC and a patient-centered poster in alternating order. Participants were contraceptive users and non-users that we selected purposively to have a range of characteristics that might influence their perspective: age, race/ethnicity, previous births and pregnancies, contraceptive method(s) used in the past three months, pregnancy intentions, and numeracy. The initial response rate for participants was 55%. We used cognitive theory to code interviews for comprehension, relevance, and acceptability, as well as design and overall preference. We structured the 26 interviews into four rounds and revised the patient-centered poster after each round to improve these measures., Results: By the final round, 83% of women preferred the patient-centered poster. The majority of women favored this poster's relevance (86%), and design (100%) and ease of comprehension (86%). Women raised few concerns about the acceptability of the final version of the patient-centered poster. Women identified many issues with both posters that the researchers did not anticipate, highlighting the value of patient-centered design approaches to educational materials., Conclusions: This study refined a patient-centered poster so that its language is clear and it addresses the informational needs of its target audience., Implications: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Office of Population Affairs recommend that clinicians educate women about contraception. This study developed a poster that could help clinicians follow this recommendation. Before widespread implementation, more research is needed to evaluate the poster's impact on contraceptive knowledge and behaviors., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Public health practitioners can use Behavior Over Time (BOT) graphs to spur discussion and systems thinking around complex challenges. Multiple large systems, such as health care, the economy, and education, affect chronic disease rates in the United States. System thinking tools can build public health practitioners' capacity to understand these systems and collaborate within and across sectors to improve population health. BOT graphs show a variable, or variables (y axis) over time (x axis). Although analyzing trends is not new to public health, drawing BOT graphs, annotating the events and systemic forces that are likely to influence the depicted trends, and then discussing the graphs in a diverse group provides an opportunity for public health practitioners to hear each other's perspectives and creates a more holistic understanding of the key factors that contribute to a trend. We describe how BOT graphs are used in public health, how they can be used to generate group discussion, and how this process can advance systems-level thinking. Then we describe how BOT graphs were used with groups of maternal and child health (MCH) practitioners and partners (N = 101) during a training session to advance their thinking about MCH challenges. Eighty-six percent of the 84 participants who completed an evaluation agreed or strongly agreed that they would use this BOT graph process to engage stakeholders in their home states and jurisdictions. The BOT graph process we describe can be applied to a variety of public health issues and used by practitioners, stakeholders, and researchers.