IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0361027.html

Do community pharmacies unnecessarily recommend oral emergency contraception? A nationwide mystery caller investigation in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Bernhard Langer
  • Anne Beck
  • Antonia M Dreier
  • Rosa Gabrieljan
  • Hanna Hilgenhof
  • Johanna Latuske
  • Carolin Priepke
  • Katharina Schaihadinow
  • Helene Schwarz
  • Christian Kunow

Abstract

Background: Since 2015, oral emergency contraceptives (ECs) have been available in German community pharmacies without prescription as over-the-counter medicines. Given the financial burden, unnecessary hormonal exposure and associated side effects, systematic information gathering is crucial to prevent unnecessary recommendations. This study aimed to determine whether pharmacy staff ask the checklist questions recommended by the German Federal Chamber of Pharmacists (BAK) guideline and provide correct recommendations when oral EC is not indicated (appropriate outcome), and to examine associated factors. Methods: A nationwide study using the simulated patient methodology – considered the “gold standard” – was conducted with a stratified random sample of 376 community pharmacies across Germany. Eight trained female mystery callers aged 21–24 simulated a scenario in which a combined oral contraceptive was forgotten once after sexual intercourse. However, the pill could still be taken within the 12-hour window, making oral EC unnecessary according to the BAK guideline. To ensure quality, each call was monitored by a second observer. Results: Of 376 mystery calls conducted, 322 were included in the primary analysis. An appropriate outcome was achieved in 44.4% (143/322), while oral EC was unnecessarily recommended in 49.1% (158/322). The median questioning score was 2.0 of 4.0 points. A multivariable logistic regression model showed that a higher questioning score and mystery caller identity were significantly associated with the appropriate outcome. Qualitative findings indicated both positive counseling practices and notable deficiencies among pharmacy staff. Conclusion: The results show deficits in information gathering and appropriate recommendations. To improve counseling, the consistent use of the BAK checklist during telephone consultations should be explicitly recommended in the relevant guideline. Targeted training for pharmacy staff may help address professional and communication deficits. Surprisingly, some mystery callers were significantly associated with the appropriate outcome, highlighting the need for further research on the influence of vocal characteristics and last names in telephone consultations.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernhard Langer & Anne Beck & Antonia M Dreier & Rosa Gabrieljan & Hanna Hilgenhof & Johanna Latuske & Carolin Priepke & Katharina Schaihadinow & Helene Schwarz & Christian Kunow, 2026. "Do community pharmacies unnecessarily recommend oral emergency contraception? A nationwide mystery caller investigation in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-25, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0361027
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0361027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361027
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0361027&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0361027?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0361027. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.