Nozer Sheriar1, Ritu Joshi2, Basab Mukherjee3, Bhaskar Pal4, Ashish Birla5, Subrat K Ray5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Breach Candy Hospital, 60 A, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400026 India. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Monilek Hospital and Research Center, Sector 4, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004 India. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Calcutta Medical Research Institute, 7/2, Diamond Harbour Road, Alipore, Kolkata, West Bengal 700027 India. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Apollo Gleneagles Hospital, 58, Canal Circular Road, Kolkata, West Bengal 700054 India. 5. Department of Medical Affairs, Organon (India) Private Limited, A Subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc.,Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA, Platina Building, 8th Floor, C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, 400098 India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of "structured contraception counseling" on Indian women's selection of contraceptive methods. METHODS: Women (≥18 and ≤40 years) requesting contraception were enrolled at 36 sites. "Structured contraception counseling" was provided by a health care professional on the available contraceptive methods. Questionnaires on the women's pre- and post-counseling contraceptive choice, her perceptions, and the reasons behind her post-counseling decision were filled. RESULTS: Significant reductions were observed in the proportion of women who were indecisive (n = 260; 31.5 % pre-counseling vs. n = 30; 3.6 %, post-counseling [P < 0.001]) and women opting for non-hormonal method (24.6 % pre-counseling vs. 6.8 % post-counseling, [P < 0.001]). Of all the women counseled (n = 825), 89.6 % (739/825) of women chose a hormonal contraceptive method. There were significant difference (P < 0.001) in the women's choice of contraceptive in the pre- and post-counseling sessions, respectively (combined oral contraceptive: 30.8 vs. 40.7 %; vaginal ring: 1.8 vs. 14.1 %; progestogen only pills: 1.6 vs. 7.9 %; injectable-depot medroxyprogesterone acetate: 5.9 vs. 13.6 %; levonorgestrel-intrauterine system: 3.8 vs. 13.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: Structured contraception counseling using standardized protocol and aids resulted in a significant increase in the selection of modern contraceptive methods. Post-counseling majority of women opted for hormonal methods with an increase in selection of pills and newer alternatives.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of "structured contraception counseling" on Indian women's selection of contraceptive methods. METHODS:Women (≥18 and ≤40 years) requesting contraception were enrolled at 36 sites. "Structured contraception counseling" was provided by a health care professional on the available contraceptive methods. Questionnaires on the women's pre- and post-counseling contraceptive choice, her perceptions, and the reasons behind her post-counseling decision were filled. RESULTS: Significant reductions were observed in the proportion of women who were indecisive (n = 260; 31.5 % pre-counseling vs. n = 30; 3.6 %, post-counseling [P < 0.001]) and women opting for non-hormonal method (24.6 % pre-counseling vs. 6.8 % post-counseling, [P < 0.001]). Of all the women counseled (n = 825), 89.6 % (739/825) of women chose a hormonal contraceptive method. There were significant difference (P < 0.001) in the women's choice of contraceptive in the pre- and post-counseling sessions, respectively (combined oral contraceptive: 30.8 vs. 40.7 %; vaginal ring: 1.8 vs. 14.1 %; progestogen only pills: 1.6 vs. 7.9 %; injectable-depot medroxyprogesterone acetate: 5.9 vs. 13.6 %; levonorgestrel-intrauterine system: 3.8 vs. 13.3 %). CONCLUSIONS: Structured contraception counseling using standardized protocol and aids resulted in a significant increase in the selection of modern contraceptive methods. Post-counseling majority of women opted for hormonal methods with an increase in selection of pills and newer alternatives.
Authors: Iñaki Lete; Jose Luis Doval; Ezequiel Pérez-Campos; Rafael Sánchez-Borrego; Marta Correa; Esther de la Viuda; Mari Angeles Gómez; José Vicente González; Roberto Lertxundi; María Teresa Martínez; Nicolás Mendoza; Javier Robledo Journal: Contraception Date: 2007-06-27 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: R Baveja; K Buckshee; K Das; S K Das; M N Hazra; S Gopalan; A Goswami; B S Kodkany; C N Sujaya Kumari; K Zaveri; M Roy; S Datey; L N Gaur; N K Gupta; R N Gupta; N C Saxena; R Singh; S Kumar; S C Yadav; B N Saxena Journal: Contraception Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Johannes Bitzer; Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson; Frans Roumen; Maya Marintcheva-Petrova; Bas van Bakel; Björn J Oddens Journal: Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 1.848
Authors: Mireille Merckx; Gilbert G Donders; Pascale Grandjean; Tine Van de Sande; Steven Weyers Journal: Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.848
Authors: Jennifer B Griffin; Kathleen Ridgeway; Elizabeth Montgomery; Kristine Torjesen; Rachel Clark; Jill Peterson; Rachel Baggaley; Ariane van der Straten Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Danielle M Harris; Anita Dam; Kate Morrison; Chastain Mann; Ashley Jackson; Shannon M Bledsoe; Andrea Rowan; Kim Longfield Journal: Stud Fam Plann Date: 2022-08-03