Skip to main content
Log in

From compliance to concordance: A challenge for contraceptive prescribers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In 1997 the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain published a report entitledFrom Compliance to Concordance: Achieving Shared Goals in Medicine Taking. This article applies this new model—of doctors and patients working together towards a shared goal—to the prescribing of hormonal forms of contraception. It begins by critically evaluating the current dominant model of contraceptive prescribing. It claims that this model tends to stereotype all women, but particularly young, poor and black women, as unreliable and ill-informed contraceptors who need to be advised and even controlled by much more knowledgeable and socially responsible family planning experts. The article then suggests how a much more egalitarian model of contraceptive prescribing might be put into practice, whilst acknowledging the existence of many serious obstacles to such a radical shift within family planning services. In conclusion, the article suggests that until contraceptive prescribers begin to take women’s experiences of, and concerns about, hormonal contraceptives seriously they will fail to develop a potentially much more effective and liberating model of family planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Williams, S. And Calnan, M. (eds) (1996).Modern Medicine: Lay perspectives and Experiences, UCL, London.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Department of Health (1991).The Patient’s Charter, HMSO, London.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (1997).From Compliance to Concordance: Achieving Shared Goals in Medicine Taking, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Guillebaud, J. (1994).Oral Contraceptive Compliance: What You and Your Patients Need To Know, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hepburn, M. (1995). Factors influencing contraceptive choice. In,A Handbook of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 3rd edn., ed. by N. Loudon, A. Glasier, and A. Gebbie, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Tindall, V.R. (1987).Jeffcoate’s Principles of Gynaecology, 5th edn., Butterworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gehlert, S. and Lickey, S. (1995). Social and health policy concerns raised by the introduction of the contraceptive Norplant.Social Service Review 69, 323–337.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berenson, A.B. and Wiemann, C.M. (1995) Use of levonorgestrel implants versus oral contraceptives in adolescence: a case-control study.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 172, 1128–1137.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Beilenson, P., Miola, E.S. and Farmer, M. (1995). Politics and practice: introducing Norplant into a school-based health center in Baltimore.American Journal of Public Health 85, 309–311.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Guillebaud, J. (1997). Contraception. In,Women’s Health, 4th edn., ed. by A. McPherson and D. Waller, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guilebaud, J. and Law, B. (1987). Contraception. In,Women’s Problems in General Practice, ed. by A. McPherson, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Jones, H.W., Wentz, A.C. and Burnett, L.S. (1988).Novak’s Textbook of Gynecology, 11th edn., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Loudon, N., Glasier, A. and Gebbie, A. (eds.) (1995).Handbook of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh.

  14. Mosse, J and Heaton, J. (1990).The Fertility and Contraception Book, Faber and Faber, London.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Walling, M. (1995). Treatment of non-menstrual side effects of Norplant: recommendations of expert group.The British Journal of Family Planning 21(Suppl.), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Oloto, E.J. and Bromham D.R. (1995). Treatment of menstrual side effects in Norplant users.The British Journal of Family Planning 21(Suppl.), 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pollock, S. (1984). Refusing to take women seriously: side effects and the politics of contraception. In,Test-Tube Women, ed. by R. Arditti et al., Pandora, London.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dillner, R. (1996). Pill scare linked to rise in abortions.British Medical Journal 312, 987–988.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lees, S. (1993).Sugar and Spice: Sexuality and Adolescent Girls, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Bryan, B., Dadzie, S. and Scafe, S. (1985).The Heart Of The Race, Virago, London.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mullen, P.D. (1997). Compliance becomes concordance.British Medical Journal 314, 691–692.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Wahab, M. and Killick, S. (1996). Oral contraceptive knowledge and compliance in young women.The British Journal of Family Planning 22, 170–173.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Glantz, S., Campbell-Heider, N., Glantz, J.C. and Bartlett, M. (1995). Contraceptive implant use among inner city teens.Journal of Adolescent Health 16, 389–395.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Potts, M. and Diggory, P. (1983).Textbook Of Contraceptive Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foster, P., Hudson, S. From compliance to concordance: A challenge for contraceptive prescribers. Health Care Anal 6, 123–130 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678118

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02678118

Keywords

Navigation