Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Nov;24(56):1–44. doi: 10.3310/hta24560

An interactive website to aid young women's choice of contraception: feasibility and efficacy RCT.

Judith Stephenson, Julia V Bailey, Ann Blandford, Nataliya Brima, Andrew Copas, Preethy D'Souza, Anasztazia Gubijev, Rachael Hunter, Jill Shawe, Greta Rait, Sandy Oliver
PMCID: PMC7681569  PMID: 33164729

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Effective use of contraception can reduce numbers of unintended pregnancies, but misunderstandings and concerns about contraception abound. Increasingly, women seek health-care information online.

OBJECTIVES

To develop an interactive website to aid informed choice of contraceptive method, including long-acting reversible contraception (Phase I), and test its effectiveness in a parallel, single-blind randomised trial (Phase II). Approval came from London - Camden & King's Cross Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/LO/0112).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

For both phases, women aged 15-30 years were recruited from general practice, sexual health services, maternity services, community pharmacies and an abortion service.

DESIGN

In Phase I, we conducted three systematic literature reviews, a review of YouTube (YouTube, LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) videos about contraception, and focus groups and interviews with young women to explore barriers to and concerns and misperceptions about contraception. We then iteratively co-designed an interactive website, Contraception Choices [URL: www.contraceptionchoices.org (accessed June 2020)], with young women and a software company. In Phase II, we evaluated the website through a randomised trial that began as a feasibility trial. Early demand for Contraception Choices stimulated a design change from a feasibility to an efficacy trial, with follow-up for clinical outcomes at 3 and 6 months. A randomisation list was incorporated into the trial software program to allocate participants to the intervention (website) or control group (standard care).

INTERVENTION

Contraception Choices is a co-designed, evidence-based, interactive website to aid informed choice of contraception. It provides information about different methods, addresses common concerns and offers tailored contraceptive options in response to individual preferences.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Qualitative - participant views and experience of the intervention, assessed through qualitative interviews. Quantitative primary outcomes - follow-up rate at 6 months in the initial feasibility trial, using a long-acting reversible contraception method, and satisfaction with contraceptive method at 6 months in the efficacy trial.

RESULTS

A total of 927 women were randomised online to the website (n = 464) or control group (n = 463), of whom 739 (80%) provided follow-up data at 6 months [786 women (85%) provided data at 3 and/or 6 months that were included in the analysis of primary outcomes]. There was little difference between groups in the proportion using long-acting reversible contraception at 6 months [30.4% intervention vs. 31.0% control, adjusted odds ratio after imputation 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.27)] or in satisfaction with contraceptive method [proportion being 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied', 82.6% intervention vs. 82.1% control, adjusted odds ratio 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.25)]. Qualitative evaluation indicated highly positive views about the website and increased knowledge of contraceptive methods that could dispel misperceptions. Women appreciated having information tailored to their specific needs and felt better prepared before consultations.

LIMITATIONS

We did not include intermediate measures, such as knowledge of contraceptive methods, intention to change method or confidence in discussing contraception with a health-care professional, which may have indicated other benefits of using the website. In future, the website should be studied in different settings (e.g. schools and in routine practice) to see whether or not it improves the quality or efficiency of contraceptive consultations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review indicated wide-ranging influences on women's use of contraception globally. The website, Contraception Choices, was very popular with young women and contraception service providers. It was not associated with statistically significant differences in use of long-acting reversible contraception or satisfaction with contraceptive method at 6 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13247829.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 56. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

Choosing between types of contraception can be challenging, so can a website help women make the right choice for them?

WHAT DID WE DO?

We asked women what they think about contraception. We looked at other studies and YouTube (YouTube, LLC, San Bruno, CA, USA) videos. We then designed the Contraception Choices website with young women [URL: www.contraceptionchoices.org (accessed January 2020)]. The website describes each type of contraception and compares them side by side. When users answer questions about what matters to them, the website suggests three types of contraception they might like. A total of 927 women helped us test the website in an online trial. We asked everyone what contraception they were using and how satisfied they were with it 6 months later.

WHAT DID WE FIND?

Women really liked the website. Ninety-seven per cent of participants found it helpful or very helpful for ‘getting useful information about contraception’ and 87% responded that it was helpful or very helpful for ‘finding a method of contraception that is right for you’. Comments included: However, seeing the website did not mean that women used a more reliable type of contraception. Women were just as satisfied with their contraception whether or not they had seen the website. We think that this is because many other factors are involved; for example, some women found it difficult to access long-acting contraception methods from health services.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?

Young women liked the Contraception Choices website and found it useful. Women can be put off by contraception side effects and the views of partners, friends, family and others. On its own, the Contraception Choices website was not enough to help more women use the most reliable contraception methods.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. GOV.UK. Abortion Statistics, England Wales, 2017. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2017.
  2. Armstrong N, Donaldson C. The Economics of Sexual Health. London: Family Planning Association; 2005.
  3. Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Madden T, Allsworth JE, Secura GM. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1998–2007. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110855 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110855. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Long-acting Reversible Contraception: The Effective and Appropriate Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception. 2005. URL: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK51051/ (accessed 18 June 2019).
  5. NHS Digital. NHS Contraceptive Services, England – 2012–13, Community Contraceptive Clinics. 2013. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/nhs-contraceptive-services/nhs-contraceptive-services-england-2012-13-community-contraceptive-clinics (accessed 18 June 2019).
  6. French RS, Geary R, Jones K, Glasier A, Mercer CH, Datta J, et al. Where do women and men in Britain obtain contraception? Findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). BMJ Sex Reprod Health 2018;44:16–26. https://doi.org/10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101728 doi: 10.1136/jfprhc-2017-101728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Lopez LM, Grey TW, Chen M, Tolley EE, Stockton LL. Theory-based interventions for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11:CD007249. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007249.pub5 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007249.pub5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  8. Halpern V, Lopez LM, Grimes DA, Stockton LL, Gallo MF. Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods of contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;10:CD004317. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004317.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004317.pub4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Arrowsmith ME, Aicken CR, Saxena S, Majeed A. Strategies for improving the acceptability and acceptance of the copper intrauterine device. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD008896. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008896.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008896.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Matthews D. Internet Access Quarterly Update: Q4 2013. 2014. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/householdcharacteristics/homeinternetandsocialmediausage/bulletins/internetaccessquarterlyupdate/2014-02-19 (accessed 18 June 2019).
  11. McCarthy O, Carswell K, Murray E, Free C, Stevenson F, Bailey JV. What young people want from a sexual health website: design and development of Sexunzipped. J Med Internet Res 2012;14:e127. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2116 doi: 10.2196/jmir.2116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Bailey JV, Murray E, Rait G, Mercer CH, Morris RW, Peacock R, et al. Interactive computer-based interventions for sexual health promotion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;9:CD006483. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006483.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006483.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Garbers S, Meserve A, Kottke M, Hatcher R, Ventura A, Chiasson MA. Randomized controlled trial of a computer-based module to improve contraceptive method choice. Contraception 2012;86:383–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.01.013 doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Garbers S, Meserve A, Kottke M, Hatcher R, Chiasson MA. Tailored health messaging improves contraceptive continuation and adherence: results from a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2012;86:536–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.02.005 doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.02.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Schwarz EB, Burch EJ, Parisi SM, Tebb KP, Grossman D, Mehrotra A, Gonzales R. Computer-assisted provision of hormonal contraception in acute care settings. Contraception 2013;87:242–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.07.003 doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.07.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Schwarz EB, Gerbert B, Gonzales R. Computer-assisted provision of emergency contraception a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med 2008;23:794–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0609-x doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0609-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Wilson A, Nirantharakumar K, Truchanowicz EG, Surenthirakumaran R, MacArthur C, Coomarasamy A. Motivational interviews to improve contraceptive use in populations at high risk of unintended pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015;191:72–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.05.010 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Pazol K, Zapata LB, Tregear SJ, Mautone-Smith N, Gavin LE. Impact of contraceptive education on contraceptive knowledge and decision making: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2015;49(Suppl. 2):46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.031 doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.03.031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  19. Oringanje C, Meremikwu MM, Eko H, Esu E, Meremikwu A, Ehiri JE. Interventions for preventing unintended pregnancies among adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD005215. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005215.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005215.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Lopez LM, Grey TW, Chen M, Hiller JE. Strategies for improving postpartum contraceptive use: evidence from non-randomized studies. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;11:CD011298. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011298.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011298.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Jepson RG, Hewison J, Thompson AG, Weller D. How should we measure informed choice? The case of cancer screening. J Med Ethics 2005;31:192–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2003.005793 doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005793. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. Dehlendorf C, Levy K, Kelley A, Grumbach K, Steinauer J. Women’s preferences for contraceptive counseling and decision making. Contraception 2013;88:250–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.012 doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Barnet B, Liu J, DeVoe M, Duggan AK, Gold MA, Pecukonis E. Motivational intervention to reduce rapid subsequent births to adolescent mothers: a community-based randomized trial. Ann Fam Med 2009;7:436–45. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1014 doi: 10.1370/afm.1014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Barnet B, Rapp T, deVoe M, Mullins CD. Cost-effectiveness of a motivational intervention to reduce rapid repeated childbearing in high-risk adolescent mothers: a rebirth of economic and policy considerations. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2010;164:370–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.16 doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.16. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Sridhar A, Chen A, Forbes ER, Glik D. Mobile application for information on reversible contraception: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:774.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.011. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Antonishak J, Kaye K, Swiader L. Impact of an online birth control support network on unintended pregnancy. Soc Mar Q 2015;21:23–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500414566698 doi: 10.1177/1524500414566698. [DOI]
  27. Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. Service Standards for Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. London: Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare; 2016.
  28. Guillebaud J, MacGregor A. Contraception: Your Questions Answered. 7th edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017.
  29. Bailey JV, Pavlou M, Copas A, McCarthy O, Carswell K, Rait G, et al. The Sexunzipped trial: optimizing the design of online randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2013;15:e278. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2668 doi: 10.2196/jmir.2668. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins CD, Nuijten M, et al. Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: report of the ISPOR Task Force on good research practices – budget impact analysis. Value Health 2007;10:336–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2018.
  32. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed June 2020).
  33. Public Health England. Contraception: Economic Analysis Estimation of the Return on Investment (ROI) for Publicly Funded Contraception in England. London: Public Health England; 2018.
  34. NHS Improvement. Reference Costs 2017–2018. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed June 2020).
  35. Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. What Does the Patient Pay? 2018. URL: https://psnc.org.uk/dispensing-supply/receiving-a-prescription/patient-charges/ (accessed 20 December 2018).
  36. Boots: Boots Company Plc. Condoms and Sexual Health. 2018. URL: www.boots.com/health-pharmacy/condoms-sexual-health (accessed 10 October 2018).
  37. Amazon. Amazon.com Inc. URL: https://amazon.co.uk (accessed June 2020).
  38. Stephenson J, Bailey JV, Gubijev A, d’Souza P, Oliver S, Blandford A, et al. An interactive website for informed contraception choice: randomised evaluation of Contraception Choices. Digital Health 2020;6:2055207620936435. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055207620936435 doi: 10.1177/2055207620936435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Office for National Statistics. Dataset: Estimates of the Population for the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2018.
  40. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2018.

RESOURCES