Table 2. Knowledge and experience of physicians about emergency contraception.
| Variables | n | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EC method released in Brazil | |||
| EC prescription | |||
| Yuzpe method and LNG (n=151) | Yes | 21 | 13.9 |
| No | 130 | 86.1 | |
| Maximum time (n=132) | 24 hours | 27 | 20.5 |
| 72 hours | 85 | 64.4 | |
| 120 hours | 20 | 15.2 | |
| Physical examination before EC prescription (n=138) | Unnecessary | 11 | 8.0 |
| Recommended | 35 | 25.4 | |
| Always necessary | 92 | 66.7 | |
| Pelvic examination before EC prescription (n=133) | Unnecessary | 26 | 19.5 |
| Recommended | 60 | 45.1 | |
| Always necessary | 47 | 35.3 | |
| Pregnancy test before EC prescription (n=137) | Unnecessary | 55 | 40.1 |
| Recommended | 28 | 20.4 | |
| Always necessary | 54 | 39.4 | |
| Legal guardian consent (n=120) | Unnecessary most of the time | 26 | 21.7 |
| Recommended | 56 | 46.7 | |
| Always necessary | 38 | 31.7 | |
| Experience | |||
| Theoretical learning (n=151) | Yes | 105 | 69.5 |
| No | 46 | 30.5 | |
| Practical learning (n=151) | EC prescription | 50 | 33.1 |
| Not prescribed | 101 | 66.9 | |
| Reasons why prescription was requested (n=50)* | |||
| Unprotected sex | 34 | 68.0 | |
| Forgetfulness of pill | 19 | 38.0 | |
| Ruptured condom | 18 | 36.0 | |
| Sexual violence | 15 | 30.0 | |
| Has not prescribed or would not prescribe | |||
| Exceeded the maximum time to prescribe EC (n=122) | 77 | 63.1 | |
| Inexperience with use (n=137) | 74 | 54.0 | |
| Referral of patient to another colleague (n=129) | 53 | 41.1 | |
| The belief that EC compromises adherence to other methods (n=128) | 45 | 35.2 | |
| The belief that EC stimulates sexual risk behavior (n=128) | 40 | 31.3 | |
| Fear of teratogenic effects (n=131) | 36 | 27.5 | |
| Religious reasons (n=131) | 21 | 16.0 | |
| Moral reasons (n=129) | 19 | 14.7 | |
| The belief that EC causes abortion (n=125) | 18 | 14.4 | |
| EC is not effective (n=119) | 1 | 0.8 | |
EC: emergency contraception; LNG: levonorgestrel. *More than one option possible.