Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Device Regulations: Lessons for Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Unintended pregnancy rates in Canada have remained relatively stable over the past decade, even though contraceptive use has increased over the same time period. Given these statistics, it is possible that Canadians are using contraceptives inconsistently, or are using less effective contraceptive methods. For example, Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives (LARC), such as intrauterine devices and subdermal implants, have the lowest failure rates of all currently developed reversible methods but are only used by less than five percent of female contraceptive users in Canada. Several researchers and health care professionals have suggested that increasing LARC use could have a significant impact on reducing the unintended pregnancy rate, given their high efficacy rates and minimal room for user error. However, Canadian women have limited choices when it comes to LARC products, which may influence LARC uptake. For example, no type of subdermal implant is currently available on the Canadian market, and several types of intrauterine devices are also unavailable. While there are many market factors that may affect product variety in Canada, some researchers have determined that unnecessary regulatory hurdles are largely responsible for Canada’s dearth of contraceptive products. The first step to increasing LARC uptake is to ensure that the Canadian regulatory system is properly equipped to attract and approve safe and effective LARC products. This paper examines the regulatory process in some of Canada’s peer countries—namely The United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia—in order to discover regulatory best practices for LARCs. This paper compares each country’s classification system for LARCs, the overall pathway to regulatory approval, clinical trial requirements, post-market surveillance activities, and the transparency of each country’s regulatory process. After a review of the literature, it is evident that there are many lessons to be learned from other countries’ experiences with LARC regulations. The overarching lesson is that it is imperative to include a number of voices in both the pre-market approvals process and in postmarket surveillance. Academic researchers, doctors, medical professionals, consumers, distributors, manufacturers, government officials, and international regulators all have an important role to play in upholding safety and efficacy standards. In an increasingly globalized pharmaceutical industry, Canada would do well to increase participation from each of these groups in order to reduce unnecessary regulatory hurdles for manufacturers while simultaneously protecting consumers from unsafe devices. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for Health Canada. If adopted, these recommendations will make Canada a more attractive market for LARC products while ensuring that the highest standards of safety and efficacy are upheld for Canadian contraceptive users. As a result, more LARC products will seek to enter the Canadian market, which will provide women with diverse needs and preferences with more options when it comes to selecting an effective contraceptive method.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».