Cluster, Randomized Trial on Long Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) Education and Training

Contraception Behavior Clinical Trial

— LARC  

Official title:

Cluster, Randomized Trial on Provider LARC Education and Training

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT01360216
• Other study ID #: 2010-5442
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: May 2011
• Est. completion date: August 2013

Study information

• Verified date: July 2020
• Source: University of California, San Francisco
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

The purpose of the study is to measure whether an education and training intervention for clinicians and contraceptive counselors on long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) will result in greater use of the methods among contraceptive patients.

Description:

Unintended pregnancy is extremely high in the United States among young women, and use of contraceptives with top-tier effectiveness, intrauterine contraception and implants, is low. Contraceptive providers in the US have low knowledge of current scientific evidence on LARC methods, and do not routinely include these methods in counseling patients at highest risk of unintended pregnancy. This intervention provides evidence-based education and hands-on training to clinicians and contraceptive educators in Planned Parenthood affiliated Title X clinics throughout the US on LARC methods.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 1500
• Est. completion date: August 2013
• Est. primary completion date: May 2013
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: Female
• Age group: 18 Years to 25 Years

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

This study involves two groups of human subjects: patients and staff at participating Planned Parenthood (PP) clinics in the United States.

Patient participants are young women receiving contraceptive counseling at Planned Parenthood clinics and staff participants are the clinicians and health educators serving these women.

Patients must be:

Female;

• Age 18-25;

• Fluent in English or Spanish;

• Not wanting to become pregnant in the next 12 months;

• Sexually active in past 3 months;

• At risk of pregnancy;

• Received contraceptive counseling;

• Not pregnant;

• Willing to be contacted by telephone over the next 12 months.

Clinic staff must be:

• Employed by a participating PP clinic; and

• Offer clinical care, counseling or education for abortion or contraception at the clinic. (This may include physicians, advance practice clinicians, nurses, social workers and health educators.)

For clinics to be eligible to be study sites, they must:

• Not share staff

• Have no active LARC interventions ongoing

• Have >400 clients/year

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Contraception Behavior

Intervention

Behavioral:
• LARC education and training
A CME/CEU accredited Grand Rounds education and training session will be given to clinicians and contraceptive educators practicing in clinics assigned to the intervention arm. Clinicians will have hands-on training as well. The half-day session emphasizes evidence-based contraceptive counseling and provision.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	University of California San Francisco	San Francisco	California

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
University of California, San Francisco	Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (25)

Allen RH, Goldberg AB, Grimes DA. Expanding access to intrauterine contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Nov;201(5):456.e1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.027. Epub 2009 Jun 13. — View Citation

Darney P, Patel A, Rosen K, Shapiro LS, Kaunitz AM. Safety and efficacy of a single-rod etonogestrel implant (Implanon): results from 11 international clinical trials. Fertil Steril. 2009 May;91(5):1646-53. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.140. Epub 2008 Apr 18. — View Citation

Deans EI, Grimes DA. Intrauterine devices for adolescents: a systematic review. Contraception. 2009 Jun;79(6):418-23. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.12.009. Epub 2009 Feb 7. Review. — View Citation

Fleming KL, Sokoloff A, Raine TR. Attitudes and beliefs about the intrauterine device among teenagers and young women. Contraception. 2010 Aug;82(2):178-82. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.020. Epub 2010 Apr 13. — View Citation

Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Benedict C, Reeves MF, Pera-Floyd M, Foster-Rosales A. Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception. 2008 Aug;78(2):136-42. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.008. Epub 2008 Jun 18. — View Citation

Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Reeves MF, Foster-Rosales A. Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008 Aug;78(2):143-8. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.003. Epub 2008 May 14. — View Citation

Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, Stanwood NL. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jun 16;(6):CD001777. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001777.pub3. Review. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:CD001777. — View Citation

Grimes DA. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet. 2000 Sep 16;356(9234):1013-9. Review. — View Citation

Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, Darney PD, Speidel JJ, Policar M, Drey EA. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jun;111(6):1359-69. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318173fd83. — View Citation

Hladky KJ, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Women's knowledge about intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;117(1):48-54. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318202b4c9. — View Citation

Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, Guerra-Infante F, Guzmán-Rodríguez R. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med. 2001 Aug 23;345(8):561-7. — View Citation

Hubacher D, Vilchez R, Gmach R, Jarquin C, Medrano J, Gadea A, Grey T, Pierre-Louis B. The impact of clinician education on IUD uptake, knowledge and attitudes: results of a randomized trial. Contraception. 2006 Jun;73(6):628-33. Epub 2006 Mar 29. — View Citation

Kavanaugh ML, Jones RK, Finer LB. How commonly do US abortion clinics offer contraceptive services? Contraception. 2010 Oct;82(4):331-6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.010. Epub 2010 May 21. — View Citation

Kavanaugh ML, Jones RK, Finer LB. Perceived and insurance-related barriers to the provision of contraceptive services in U.S. abortion care settings. Womens Health Issues. 2011 May-Jun;21(3 Suppl):S26-31. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2011.01.009. — View Citation

Kittur ND, Secura GM, Peipert JF, Madden T, Finer LB, Allsworth JE. Comparison of contraceptive use between the Contraceptive CHOICE Project and state and national data. Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):479-85. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.10.001. Epub 2010 Nov 23. — View Citation

Madden T, Allsworth JE, Hladky KJ, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists' knowledge and attitudes. Contraception. 2010 Feb;81(2):112-6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.08.002. Epub 2009 Sep 16. — View Citation

Postlethwaite D, Shaber R, Mancuso V, Flores J, Armstrong MA. Intrauterine contraception: evaluation of clinician practice patterns in Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Contraception. 2007 Mar;75(3):177-84. Epub 2007 Jan 16. — View Citation

Raine TR, Foster-Rosales A, Upadhyay UD, Boyer CB, Brown BA, Sokoloff A, Harper CC. One-year contraceptive continuation and pregnancy in adolescent girls and women initiating hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Feb;117(2 Pt 1):363-71. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820563d3. — View Citation

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 Aug;203(2):115.e1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.017. Epub 2010 Jun 11. — View Citation

Shelton JD. Risk of clinical pelvic inflammatory disease attributable to an intrauterine device. Lancet. 2001 Feb 10;357(9254):443. — View Citation

Speidel JJ, Harper CC, Shields WC. The potential of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2008 Sep;78(3):197-200. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.06.001. Epub 2008 Jul 9. — View Citation

Stanwood NL, Bradley KA. Young pregnant women's knowledge of modern intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;108(6):1417-22. — View Citation

Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):275-80. — View Citation

Thompson KM, Speidel JJ, Saporta V, Waxman NJ, Harper CC. Contraceptive policies affect post-abortion provision of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception. 2011 Jan;83(1):41-7. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.06.008. Epub 2010 Sep 20. — View Citation

Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009 Jan;79(1):5-14. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.08.003. Epub 2008 Sep 25. Erratum in: Contraception. 2009 Aug;80(2):229-30. — View Citation

* Note: There are 25 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Other	Sub-analysis for primary outcome, decision to use LARC method	We will assess the outcome decision to use LARC, by important factors affecting contraceptive methods, including policy variables for contraceptive coverage (Medicaid expansion waiver states, mandates for contraceptive coverage for private insurance), clinic visit type (post-abortion or family planning), pregnancy intentions, mental health and domestic violence, male partner, provider-patient interaction, sociodemographic factors (age, race/ethnicity, education).	Baseline
Other	Sub-analyses for pregnancy during 12-month study	We will assess the secondary outcome, pregnancy during 12-month study, by important pregnancy risk variables, including clinic visit type (post-abortion or family planning), pregnancy intentions, mental health and domestic violence, provider-patient interaction, male partner, sociodemographic (age, race/ethnicity, education) and policy variables (Medicaid expansion waiver states, mandates for contraceptive coverage for private insurance).	12 months (Baseline to 12-month Follow-up)
Other	Provider LARC knowledge and practices	We will measure providers' LARC knowledge and practices (discuss LARC methods with contraceptive clients) at baseline and 12-month follow-up, using provider survey data) to assess whether they integrate LARC into standard clinic practice in the intervention arm.	Baseline and 12-month Follow-up
Other	LARC use over time	We will measure patient use of LARC methods with patient data (n=1500) over the course of the study, and assess factors associated with continued use over time, including sociodemographic, reproductive, mental health, and contraceptive policy factors.	12 months (baseline to 12 month follow-up)
Primary	Proportion of contraceptive patients choosing a LARC method	We are measuring the proportion of patients deciding to use a LARC method at intervention and control clinics in a patient cohort aged 18-25 years (n=1500). We are also measuring with clinic service statistics the proportion of contraceptive patients selecting LARC v. non-LARC methods during the 12 month-period before the intervention and the 12-month period after the intervention, to supplement the analysis with individual patient data.	Baseline
Secondary	Unintended pregnancy	We are measuring unintended pregnancy among contraceptive patients receiving contraceptive counseling at intervention and control clinics (total number 1,500) during a 12 month period.	12 months