Literature DB >> 16246655

Measured and reported weight change for women using a vaginal contraceptive ring vs. a low-dose oral contraceptive.

Katharine J O'Connell1, Lauren M Osborne, Carolyn Westhoff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Women often stop hormonal contraception because of perceived weight change. We conducted a randomized trial comparing the contraceptive vaginal ring to a low-dose oral contraceptive (OC). We examined the difference between women's reported and measured baseline weights and looked at factors affecting perceived weight change.
METHODS: We randomized 201 participants to either the vaginal ring or an OC for three cycles. We weighed participants upon enrollment (n=194) and at exit (n=167), using the same instrument for all measurements. Participants also provided self-reported height and their reactions to perceived weight changes.
RESULTS: Baseline weight and body mass index were similar for both groups (mean weight=145.9 lb). Measured weight was, on average, 4.4 lb more than reported weight; this difference was greater in overweight and obese participants. Participants gained an average of 2.8 lb over 3 months; this gain did not differ between groups or by baseline weight. Subjects who reported a "bad change" in weight at exit (n=34) gained an average of 4.4 lb, whereas those who reported "no change" (n=112) gained 2.2 lb and those who reported a "good change" (n=14) gained 3.3 lb.
CONCLUSION: Participants underreported their weight, and this difference was greater for heavier women. There was little weight change for the women in our study. Participants' opinions about weight change were not correlated with measured weight changes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16246655     DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2005.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  8 in total

Review 1.  Safety and efficacy of contraception--Why should the obese woman be any different?

Authors:  Maria I Rodriguez; Alison B Edelman
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 6.514

Review 2.  Immediate start of hormonal contraceptives for contraception.

Authors:  Laureen M Lopez; Sara J Newmann; David A Grimes; Kavita Nanda; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-12-12

3.  Misreport of gestational weight gain (GWG) in birth certificate data.

Authors:  Charmaine Smith Wright; Mark Weiner; Russ Localio; Lihai Song; Peter Chen; David Rubin
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2012-01

4.  Influence of depressed mood and psychological stress symptoms on perceived oral contraceptive side effects and discontinuation in young minority women.

Authors:  Kelli Stidham Hall; Katharine O'Connell White; Vaughn I Rickert; Nancy Reame; Carolyn Westhoff
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-06-04       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  An exploratory analysis of associations between eating disordered symptoms, perceived weight changes, and oral contraceptive discontinuation among young minority women.

Authors:  Kelli Stidham Hall; Katharine O'Connell White; Vaughn I Rickert; Nancy K Reame; Carolyn L Westhoff
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2012-06-16       Impact factor: 5.012

Review 6.  Skin patch and vaginal ring versus combined oral contraceptives for contraception.

Authors:  Laureen M Lopez; David A Grimes; Maria F Gallo; Laurie L Stockton; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-04-30

7.  Changes in weight, total fat, percent body fat, and central-to-peripheral fat ratio associated with injectable and oral contraceptive use.

Authors:  Abbey B Berenson; Mahbubur Rahman
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing.

Authors:  Frans Jme Roumen
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.423

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.