Margo S Harrison1, Saskia Bunge-Montes2, Claudia Rivera2, Andrea Jimenez-Zambrano3, Gretchen Heinrichs4, Antonio Bolanos2, Edwin Asturias3, Stephen Berman3, Jeanelle Sheeder3. 1. Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Mail Stop B198-2, Academic Office 1, 12631 E. 17th Avenue, Rm 4211, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. margo.harrison@cuanschutz.edu. 2. Fundación para la Salud Integral de los Guatemaltecos, Quetzaltenango, Guatemala. 3. Anschutz Medical Campus, University of Colorado, Mail Stop B198-2, Academic Office 1, 12631 E. 17th Avenue, Rm 4211, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 4. Denver Health, Denver, CO, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this analysis is to present initial contraceptive choices of women offered postpartum contraception in rural Guatemala. METHODS: We trained community nurses participating in the delivery of a home-based antepartum and postpartum care program in rural Guatemala in contraceptive implant placement and had them offer condoms, pills, an injection, or an implant at women's home-based 40-day postpartum visit in intervention clusters of a non-blinded, cluster-randomized trial. Women who had already started postpartum contraception or were over the age of 35 were excluded from participation. The primary outcome of the trial was contraceptive use at 3 months postpartum, so this initial analysis describes immediate preferences in the population. RESULTS: Of 208 women enrolled in the study, 108 were in intervention clusters and 100 lived in control clusters. In the intervention group, 32 women declined contraception, 36 women received the injectable, 30 women had an implant placed, 5 women started pills, 2 women chose condoms, and data on 3 women were missing. In the control clusters, 43 women were planning on the injectable, 11 planned on the implant, 10 did not want to start a method, 5 planned on sterilization, 2 aimed for natural family planning, 2 wanted a copper IUD, 1 woman wanted condoms, 18 did not know, and data on 8 women were missing. DISCUSSION: The contraceptive implant, which was not previously available in this community, had high uptake at 27.8% in the intervention group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04005391; Retrospectively Registered 7/2/2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04005391 Protocol: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3735-3.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this analysis is to present initial contraceptive choices of women offered postpartum contraception in rural Guatemala. METHODS: We trained community nurses participating in the delivery of a home-based antepartum and postpartum care program in rural Guatemala in contraceptive implant placement and had them offer condoms, pills, an injection, or an implant at women's home-based 40-day postpartum visit in intervention clusters of a non-blinded, cluster-randomized trial. Women who had already started postpartum contraception or were over the age of 35 were excluded from participation. The primary outcome of the trial was contraceptive use at 3 months postpartum, so this initial analysis describes immediate preferences in the population. RESULTS: Of 208 women enrolled in the study, 108 were in intervention clusters and 100 lived in control clusters. In the intervention group, 32 women declined contraception, 36 women received the injectable, 30 women had an implant placed, 5 women started pills, 2 women chose condoms, and data on 3 women were missing. In the control clusters, 43 women were planning on the injectable, 11 planned on the implant, 10 did not want to start a method, 5 planned on sterilization, 2 aimed for natural family planning, 2 wanted a copper IUD, 1 woman wanted condoms, 18 did not know, and data on 8 women were missing. DISCUSSION: The contraceptive implant, which was not previously available in this community, had high uptake at 27.8% in the intervention group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04005391; Retrospectively Registered 7/2/2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04005391 Protocol: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3735-3.
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
Authors: Kathryn M Curtis; Naomi K Tepper; Tara C Jatlaoui; Erin Berry-Bibee; Leah G Horton; Lauren B Zapata; Katharine B Simmons; H Pamela Pagano; Denise J Jamieson; Maura K Whiteman Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2016-07-29