Literature DB >> 21508749

Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception.

Jeffrey F Peipert1, Qiuhong Zhao, Jenifer E Allsworth, Emiko Petrosky, Tessa Madden, David Eisenberg, Gina Secura.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate 12-month satisfaction and continuation rates of intrauterine device (IUD) and implant users enrolled in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project and compare these measures with women using the oral contraceptive pills (OCPs).
METHODS: We analyzed 12-month data from the first 5,087 participants enrolled in a prospective cohort study of women in the St. Louis region offered contraception at no cost for 3 years. The primary purpose of CHOICE is to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraception (IUDs and implants) and to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region. This analysis includes those participants who received their baseline contraceptive method within 3 months of enrollment and who reached the 12-month follow-up telephone survey time point (n=4,167).
RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of our participants chose a long-acting reversible contraception method (45% levonorgestrel intrauterine system, 10% copper IUD, and 13% subdermal implant), 23% chose combined hormonal methods (11% OCPs, 10% vaginal ring, and 2% transdermal patch), and 8% chose depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Long-acting reversible contraception users had higher 12-month continuation rates (86%) than OCP users (55%). The two IUDs had the highest 12-month continuation rates: levonorgestrel intrauterine system (88%) and copper IUD (84%). Women using the implant also had very high rates of continuation at 1 year (83%). Satisfaction mirrored continuation: more than 80% of users were satisfied with the IUD compared with 54% satisfied with OCPs.
CONCLUSION: IUDs and the subdermal implant have the highest rates of satisfaction and 12-month continuation. Given that long-acting reversible contraception methods have the highest contraceptive efficacy, these methods should be the first-line contraceptive methods offered to patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21508749      PMCID: PMC3548669          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  20 in total

1.  Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.

Authors:  Louise-Anne McNutt; Chuntao Wu; Xiaonan Xue; Jean Paul Hafner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Experiences of injectable contraceptive users in an urban setting.

Authors:  H Sangi-Haghpeykar; A N Poindexter; L Bateman; J R Ditmore
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 7.661

3.  Contraceptive discontinuation attributed to method dissatisfaction in the United States.

Authors:  Caroline Moreau; Kelly Cleland; James Trussell
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2007-08-28       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Oral contraceptive discontinuation: a prospective evaluation of frequency and reasons.

Authors:  M J Rosenberg; M S Waugh
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception.

Authors:  Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jennifer L Mullersman; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Attitudes and beliefs about the intrauterine device among teenagers and young women.

Authors:  Kendra L Fleming; Abby Sokoloff; Tina R Raine
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 3.375

7.  Safety and efficacy of Implanon, a single-rod implantable contraceptive containing etonogestrel.

Authors:  Sidney Funk; Michael M Miller; Daniel R Mishell; David F Archer; Alfred Poindexter; Juergen Schmidt; Edio Zampaglione
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Implanon users are less likely to be satisfied with their contraception after 6 months than IUD users.

Authors:  Renee C Wong; Robin J Bell; Kalyani Thunuguntla; Kathleen McNamee; Beverley Vollenhoven
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program.

Authors:  Diana Greene Foster; Daria P Rostovtseva; Claire D Brindis; M Antonia Biggs; Denis Hulett; Philip D Darney
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists' knowledge and attitudes.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; Jenifer E Allsworth; Katherine J Hladky; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  143 in total

1.  Northridge and Coupey Respond.

Authors:  Jennifer L Northridge; Susan M Coupey
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2015-11-12       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Comparison of unintended pregnancy at 12 months between two contraceptive care programs; a controlled time-trend design.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; Rachel Paul; Ragini Maddipati; Christina Buckel; Melody Goodman; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Tamoxifen for the prevention of unscheduled bleeding in new users of the levonorgestrel 52-mg intrauterine system: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Megan A Cohen; Katharine B Simmons; Alison B Edelman; Jeffrey T Jensen
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2019-06-18       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Continuation of the etonogestrel implant in women undergoing immediate postabortion placement.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; David L Eisenberg; Qiuhong Zhao; Christina Buckel; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 5.  Immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception.

Authors:  Jen Sothornwit; Yuthapong Werawatakul; Srinaree Kaewrudee; Pisake Lumbiganon; Malinee Laopaiboon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-22

6.  Ensuring our research reflects our values: The role of family planning research in advancing reproductive autonomy.

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Reiley Reed; Edith Fox; Dominika Seidman; Cara Hall; Jody Steinauer
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.375

7.  Immediate Versus Delayed Insertion of the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device in Postpartum Adolescents: A Randomized Pilot Study.

Authors:  Reni Soon; Katie McGuire; Jennifer Salcedo; Bliss Kaneshiro
Journal:  Hawaii J Med Public Health       Date:  2018-03

8.  Long-acting reversible contraceptive acceptability and unintended pregnancy among women presenting for short-acting methods: a randomized patient preference trial.

Authors:  David Hubacher; Hannah Spector; Charles Monteith; Pai-Lien Chen; Catherine Hart
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Weight change at 12 months in users of three progestin-only contraceptive methods.

Authors:  Zevidah Vickery; Tessa Madden; Qiuhong Zhao; Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  A randomized controlled study of two educational interventions on adherence with oral contraceptives and condoms.

Authors:  Abbey B Berenson; Mahbubur Rahman
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 3.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.