OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the transition process from providing Norplant, the six-capsule first contraceptive implant system, to providing Jadelle, the two-rod second-generation system, in a clinical setting with extensive experience providing Norplant implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine women requesting contraceptive implants from the PROFAMILIA clinic (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) were provided with information regarding the differences and similarities between the two implant systems being studied, including the easier insertion and removal procedures and the possible shorter use life associated with Jadelle. A questionnaire evaluating their preference and the reason why they chose either system was provided. The health care providers' opinions about the two systems were also studied. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of the women preferred Jadelle over Norplant. The main reason behind their preference for Jadelle was its reduced number of implants with easier insertion and removal and less visibility in the arm, whereas that for Norplant was greater familiarity. Providers overwhelmingly preferred Jadelle. A 1-h presentation was sufficient training for providers experienced with Norplant. None had any problem with the management of Jadelle. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of Jadelle in a clinic with extensive experience with Norplant was easy and uneventful, but both methods should be available during a transition period of several months while confidence in the new method is being acquired by the community.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the transition process from providing Norplant, the six-capsule first contraceptive implant system, to providing Jadelle, the two-rod second-generation system, in a clinical setting with extensive experience providing Norplant implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred forty-nine women requesting contraceptive implants from the PROFAMILIA clinic (Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) were provided with information regarding the differences and similarities between the two implant systems being studied, including the easier insertion and removal procedures and the possible shorter use life associated with Jadelle. A questionnaire evaluating their preference and the reason why they chose either system was provided. The health care providers' opinions about the two systems were also studied. RESULTS: Fifty-three percent of the women preferred Jadelle over Norplant. The main reason behind their preference for Jadelle was its reduced number of implants with easier insertion and removal and less visibility in the arm, whereas that for Norplant was greater familiarity. Providers overwhelmingly preferred Jadelle. A 1-h presentation was sufficient training for providers experienced with Norplant. None had any problem with the management of Jadelle. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of Jadelle in a clinic with extensive experience with Norplant was easy and uneventful, but both methods should be available during a transition period of several months while confidence in the new method is being acquired by the community.