Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Contraception. 2009 Apr;79(4):304-9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.11.003. Epub 2008 Dec 11.

The cost-effectiveness of a long-acting reversible contraceptive (Implanon) relative to oral contraception in a community setting.

Author information

1
Community Gynaecology and Sexual Health, Gwent Healthcare NHS Trust, Torfaen, UK. clare.lipetz@gwent.wales.nhs.uk

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Within the setting of a UK community sexual health service, the cost-effectiveness of Implanon and oral contraception provision over a 36-month period was compared.

STUDY DESIGN:

A case-controlled retrospective cost-effectiveness study was done on a cohort of 493 Implanon users and 493 oral contraceptive users. The actual cost of provision of both methods was calculated. Cost-effectiveness was calculated based on provision of method and pregnancy costs of each cohort.

RESULTS:

Implanon provision is more cost-effective than oral contraception at all time points. After 12 months of use, Implanon is half the cost of oral contraception. Oral contraception reached similar annual cost to Implanon at 36 months of use.

CONCLUSIONS:

Long-acting reversible contraception is perceived to be expensive. It is reassuring to contraception providers that Implanon is, in fact, highly cost-effective when compared to oral contraception with typical use.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center