2007
DOI: 10.18043/ncm.68.6.399
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Emergency Contraception for Sexual Assault Victims in North Carolina Emergency Departments

Abstract: Introduction:One in 5 women is a victim of sexual assault. This study examines the administration of emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault in North Carolina hospital emergency departments.Methods: One hundred seventeen surveys were mailed to hospital emergency departments across the state to determine their emergency contraception practices for victims of sexual assault. The survey contained 11 questions about emergency contraception practices for victims.Results: Of the 117 surveys, 103 were re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

1
0
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
1
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A significantly higher proportion of pharmacists than gynecologists (12% vs. 2%, p < .001) would not offer EC to anyone under any circumstance. Similar findings have been found in other studies, showing that provision of EC is not consistent, even for sexual assault victims (Hussainy et al 2011, Woodell, Bowling, Moracco andReed 2007). Additional deeper research with pharmacists is needed to understand their reasons for this rejection, as well as reevaluation of the dispensing regime.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%
“…A significantly higher proportion of pharmacists than gynecologists (12% vs. 2%, p < .001) would not offer EC to anyone under any circumstance. Similar findings have been found in other studies, showing that provision of EC is not consistent, even for sexual assault victims (Hussainy et al 2011, Woodell, Bowling, Moracco andReed 2007). Additional deeper research with pharmacists is needed to understand their reasons for this rejection, as well as reevaluation of the dispensing regime.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 71%