Cost-effectiveness of long-acting versus short-acting contraception in adolescents: A systematic review

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31101/jhtam.4586
Abstract views 34 times

Keywords:

cost-effectiveness, long-acting reversible contraception, short-acting reversible contraception, adolescents

Abstract

Background: Child marriage remains a global reproductive health concern, placing adolescents at high risk of early pregnancy and obstetric complications. The selection of effective and cost-efficient contraceptive methods is essential to prevent unintended pregnancies. This study aimed to identify and compare scientific evidence on the cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) versus short-acting reversible contraception (SARC) among married adolescents. Subjects and Method: This study was a systematic review guided by the PRISMA 2020 statement, employing the PICO framework. The population comprised married adolescents aged 10–19 years; the intervention included long-acting reversible contraceptives (IUDs and implants); the comparison involved short-acting reversible contraceptives (oral pills, injectables, and condoms); and the outcome focused on economic evaluation in health care. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar using MeSH-based keywords and Boolean operators. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were screened using Rayyan, and their quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. Data were narratively synthesized based on parameters of cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER), Average Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ACER), and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY). Results: Of the 471 articles identified, six met the inclusion criteria. Most studies employed Markov or decision tree models. The findings consistently indicated that LARC methods were more cost-saving compared to SARC. In Indonesia, IUDs had an ICER of USD 0.84 per pregnancy averted, compared to USD 3.76 for oral pills and USD 5.18 for injectables. In India, the etonogestrel implant achieved an Incremental Cost-Utility Ratio (ICUR) of USD 232 per QALY, well below the national willingness-to-pay threshold. In Kenya, the lowest cost per couple-year of protection was reported for IUDs at USD 4.87. Overall, LARC was shown to prevent more unintended pregnancies at a lower cost compared to SARC.  Conclusion: Long-acting reversible contraceptives are more cost-effective than short-acting methods among married adolescents, supporting their prioritization in family planning policies to improve access and utilization.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Arryan Rizqi Aulia Purnamasari, Universitas 'Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

Mahasiswa S2 bidan Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

Fiki Amalia, Universitas 'Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

Mahasiswa S2 Bidan Universitas Aisyiyah Yogyakarta

References

Allison, B. A., Ritter, V., Lin, F. C., Flower, K. B., & Perry, M. F. (2024). Trends in Continuation of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Among Adolescents Receiving Medicaid. Journal of Adolescent Health, 75(3), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.04.029

Amalia, S., Nafisah, K. D., Muliyani, N., Jusrawati, Dary, S. W., Sulistyaningsih, & Hafidz, F. (2023). Comparing cost-effectiveness of implant and IUD contraception in women: a systematic review. BKM Public Health and Community Medicine, 39(09), e9594. https://doi.org/10.22146/bkm.v39i09.9594

Beckham, J., & Cohen, A. (2023). Long-acting reversible contraceptive use among adolescents. Contemporary OB/GYN Journal, 68(05). https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/view/long-acting-reversible-contraceptive-use-among-adolescents

Durante, J. C., Sims, J., Jarin, J., Gold, M. A., Messiah, S. E., & Francis, J. K. (2023). Long-Acting Reversible Contraception for Adolescents: A Review of Practices to Support Better Communication, Counseling, and Adherence. Adolescent Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, Volume 14(May), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.2147/ahmt.s374268

Farah, D., de Moraes Andrade, T. R., Sansone, D., Batista Castello Girão, M. J., & Fonseca, M. C. M. (2022). A Cost Effectiveness Model of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods in the Brazilian National Health System. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 62(1), 114–121. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.06.023

Harun, M. H., & Ahmed, Z. (2023). Cost-Effectiveness of the Different Contraceptive Service Provisions in the Malaysian Ministry of Health Facilities. Malaysian Journal of Public Health Medicine, 23(3), 1–12.

Henry, N., Hawes, C., Lowin, J., Lekander, I., Filonenko, A., & Kallner, H. K. (2015). Cost-effectiveness analysis of a low-dose contraceptive levonorgestrel intrauterine system in Sweden. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 94(8), 884–890. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.12679

Joshi, B., Moray, K. V., Sachin, O., Chaurasia, H., & Begum, S. (2021). Cost Effectiveness of Introducing Etonorgestrel Contraceptive Implant into India’s Current Family Welfare Programme. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 19(2), 267–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00605-5

Joshi, B., Moray, K. V, Sachin, O., Chaurasia, H., & Begum, S. (2020). Cost Effectiveness of Introducing Etonorgestrel Contraceptive Implant into India ’ s Current Family Welfare Programme. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00605-5

Kungu, W., Khasakhala, A., & Agwanda, A. (2024). Trends and factors associated with long-acting reversible contraception in Kenya. 1–22.

Kurniatin, L., Marsita, E., & Nugroho, D. N. A. (2023). Determinants of Long-acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) Use among Women of Reproductive Age in Indonesia: 2017 IDHS Data Analysis. Women, Midwives and Midwifery, 3(3), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.36749/wmm.3.3.45-55.2023

Linet, T., Lévy-Bachelot, L., Farge, G., Crespi, S., Yang, J. Z., Robert, J., & Fabron, C. (2021). Real-world cost-effectiveness of etonogestrel implants compared to long-term and short term reversible contraceptive methods in France. European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 26(4), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1900562

Linet, T., Lévy-bachelot, L., Farge, G., Crespi, S., Yang, J. Z., Robert, J., Fabron, C., Linet, T., Lévy-bachelot, L., Farge, G., Crespi, S., Yang, Z., Robert, J., & Fabron, C. (2021). Real-world cost-effectiveness of etonogestrel implants compared to long-term and short term reversible contraceptive methods in France. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 26(4), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1900562

Marmett, B., Guaranha, D. D. F. K., Carvalho, A. F. de, Reis, J. M., Souza, C. L. E. de, Dalcin, T. C., & Amantéa, S. L. (2024). Cost Savings and Effectiveness of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) on the Prevention of Pregnancy in Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 37(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2023.09.008

Moray, K. V., Chaurasia, H., & Joshi, B. N. (2022). Cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods: a review. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 11(3), 997. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20220596

Ngacha, J. K., & Ayah, R. (2022). Assessing the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods from a health provider perspective: case study of Kiambu County Hospital, Kenya. Reproductive Health, 19(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-021-01308-3

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2022). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Revista Panamericana de Salud Publica/Pan American Journal of Public Health, 46, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2022.112

Saloranta, T. H., Gyllenberg, F. K., But, A., Gissler, M., Heikinheimo, O., & Laine, M. K. (2022). Use of reproductive health services among women using long- or short-acting contraceptive methods – a register-based cohort study from Finland. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13581-3

Santiago, T. C., & Novais, T. S. (2023). Transversal Teaching Of Emergency In Medicine Courses In Brazil: A Literature Review. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.22533/at.ed.1593112310022

Suwantika, A. A., Zakiyah, N., Puspitasari, I. M., & Abdulah, R. (2021). Cost-Effectiveness of Contraceptive Use in Indonesia after the Implementation of the National Health Insurance System. Journal of Pregnancy, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3453291

Trussella, J., Hassan, F., Lowin, J., Law, A., & Filonenko, A. (2015). Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. 91(1), 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.08.011.Achieving

UNFPA. (2022). UNFPA Strategy for Family Planning, 2022-2030: Expanding Choices – Ensuring Rights in a Diverse and Changing World. Laser Focus World, 39(11), 60. https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/UNFPA Strategy for Family Planning 2022-2030.pdf?utm_source

UNICEF-USA. (2024). Ending Child Marriage. https://www.unicefusa.org/what-unicef-does/child-protection/end-child-marriage

Downloads

Published

2025-12-24

How to Cite

Fitriya, Y., Rizqi Aulia Purnamasari, A., Amalia, F., Wuri Astuti, A., Binti Mohd Arifin, S. R. B. M. A., & Viska Icanervilia, A. (2025). Cost-effectiveness of long-acting versus short-acting contraception in adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery, 8(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.31101/jhtam.4586

Issue

Vol. 8 No. 2 (2025): November

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Yuni Fitriya, Arryan Rizqi Aulia Purnamasari, Fiki Amalia, Andari Wuri Astuti, Siti Roshaidai Binti Mohd Arifin Binti Mohd Arifin, Ajeng Viska Icanervilia

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Lisensi Creative Commons
Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Midwifery is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License..

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.