BACKGROUND: Progestin-only contraceptive pills (POPs) offer a safe and effective contraceptive option, particularly for women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, the prevalence of POP use among women in the United States is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed population-based data from 12,279 women aged 15-44 years in the National Survey of Family Growth. Data were collected continuously from 2006 to 2010 by in-person, computerized household interviews. Analyses describe POP use across sociodemographic and reproductive characteristics and thromboembolic risk profiles. RESULTS: Overall, 0.4% of all reproductive-aged women in the United States currently use POPs. POP use was higher among parous, postpartum and breastfeeding women than their counterparts (all p values<.001). Women at higher risk of thromboembolism (older, obese, diabetic or smoking women) had similar proportions of POP use as women without those risks. CONCLUSION: POPs are rarely used by US women. While data on chronic disease were limited, our results suggest that relatively few women with increased risk of thromboembolism are considering POPs when choosing an oral contraceptive.
BACKGROUND: Progestin-only contraceptive pills (POPs) offer a safe and effective contraceptive option, particularly for women at increased risk of venous thromboembolism. However, the prevalence of POP use among women in the United States is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed population-based data from 12,279 women aged 15-44 years in the National Survey of Family Growth. Data were collected continuously from 2006 to 2010 by in-person, computerized household interviews. Analyses describe POP use across sociodemographic and reproductive characteristics and thromboembolic risk profiles. RESULTS: Overall, 0.4% of all reproductive-aged women in the United States currently use POPs. POP use was higher among parous, postpartum and breastfeeding women than their counterparts (all p values<.001). Women at higher risk of thromboembolism (older, obese, diabetic or smoking women) had similar proportions of POP use as women without those risks. CONCLUSION: POPs are rarely used by US women. While data on chronic disease were limited, our results suggest that relatively few women with increased risk of thromboembolism are considering POPs when choosing an oral contraceptive.
Authors: Cynthia L Ogden; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Margaret A McDowell; Carolyn J Tabak; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: A Sheth; U Jain; S Sharma; A Adatia; S Patankar; L Andolsek; A Pretnar-Darovec; M A Belsey; P E Hall; R A Parker; S Ayeni; A Pinol; C Li Hoi Foo Journal: Contraception Date: 1982-03 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Kathleen E Malone; Mei-Tzu Chen Tang; William E Barlow; Peggy L Porter; Janet R Daling; Christopher I Li Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-03-14 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alicia M Allen; Andrea H Weinberger; Reagan R Wetherill; Carol L Howe; Sherry A McKee Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2019-04-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Marsha E Samson; Swann Arp Adams; Caroline M Mulatya; Jiajia Zhang; Charles L Bennett; James Hebert; Susan E Steck Journal: Maturitas Date: 2016-10-22 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ida Martinelli; Anthonie W A Lensing; Saskia Middeldorp; Marcel Levi; Jan Beyer-Westendorf; Bonno van Bellen; Henri Bounameaux; Timothy A Brighton; Alexander T Cohen; Mila Trajanovic; Martin Gebel; Phuong Lam; Philip S Wells; Martin H Prins Journal: Blood Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Sharon Dietz Ostergaard; Katherine Butler; Jana M Ritter; Ryan Johnson; Jeanine Sanders; Nathaniel Powell; George Lathrop; Sherif R Zaki; Janet M McNicholl; Ellen N Kersh Journal: J Med Primatol Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 0.667
Authors: Colleen P Judge; Xinhua Zhao; Florentina E Sileanu; Maria K Mor; Sonya Borrero Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-10-27 Impact factor: 8.661