Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:53:58.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contraceptives: On Their Own

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Lisa Kaeser ,
Jacqueline Darroch Forrest  and
Allan Rosenfield
Lisa Kaeser
Affiliation:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Jacqueline Darroch Forrest
Affiliation:
The Alan Guttmacher Institute
Allan Rosenfield
Affiliation:
Columbia School of Public Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the need for more safe and effective contraceptive drugs and devices, enormous barriers to contraceptive research and development have been raised in the United States. The designation of contraceptives as orphan drugs, with concomitant incentives, may be warranted to encourage private manufacturers to reenter the field.

Type
Special Section: Orphan Technologies
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , Fall 1992 , pp. 658 - 668
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Atkinson, L., Lincoln, R., & Forrest, J. D.Worldwide trends in funding for contraceptive research and evaluation. Family Planning Perspectives, 1985, 17, 196–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 1992, Part 3–31, Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
3.Crooks, G. Pharmaceutical discovery and development. Presentation before the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 01 28, 1991.Google Scholar
4.Forrest, J. D.Has she or hasn't she? Family Planning Perspectives, 1987, 19, 133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Forrest, J. D., & Fordyce, R. R. U.S.women's contraceptive attitudes and how they have changed in the 1980's? Family Planning Perspectives, 1988, 20, 112–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Forrest, J. D., & Singh, S.The sexual and reproductive behavior of American women 1982–1988. Family Planning Perspectives, 1990, 22, 206–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Gold, R. B.Depo-Provera: The jury is still out. Family Planning Perspectives, 1983,15,78–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Harlap, S., Kost, K., & Forrest, J. D.Preventing pregnancy, protecting health: A new look at birth control choices in the United States. New York: The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1991.Google Scholar
9.Jones, E. F., & Forrest, J. D.Contraceptive failure in the United States: Revised estimates from the 1982 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives, 1989, 21, 103–09.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Kulik, B., & Kingham, R.The adverse effects of standardless punitive damage awards on pharmaceutical development and availability. Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Journal, 1990, 45, 699–xx.Google Scholar
11.Lincoln, R., & Kaeser, L.Whatever happened to the contraceptive revolution? Family Planning Perspectives, 1988, 20, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Mastroianni, L., Donaldson, P. J., & Kane, T. T. (eds.). Developing new contraceptives: Obstacles and opportunities. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990.Google Scholar
13.Nazario, S. Breakthrough in birth control may elude the poor. Wall Street Journal, 03 4, 1991.Google Scholar
14.Office of Technology Assessment. World population and fertility planning technology: The next twenty years, Washington, DC: OTA, 1981 (as cited in the NAS/IOM report).Google Scholar
15.Pediatric products in U.S. development. SCRIP, 11 7, 1990, No. 1564, 24.Google Scholar
16.P.L. 97–414 Sec. 5(a) 1983.Google Scholar
17.Senate Subcommittee on Labor-Health and Human Services-Education. Committee report on H. R. 5257, Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1991.Google Scholar