medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2020, Número S1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2020; 88 (S1)


Causas de desapego a los métodos anticonceptivos

Barrera-Coello L, Olvera-Rodríguez V, Castelo-Branco C, Cancelo-Hidalgo MJ

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 27
Paginas: 88-95
Archivo PDF: 221.28 Kb.


RESUMEN

Existen diversas causas de abandono o desapego a los métodos anticonceptivos. De forma general, la percepción o asociación de efectos adversos del método anticonceptivo son la principal causa de abandono. La mayor parte de los efectos adversos de los métodos anticonceptivos se relaciona con ideas o creencias erróneas, basadas en mitos, que se trasmiten a través del tiempo. Incluso la influencia de abandono o desapego viene apoyada por el propio médico, quien por falta de actualización y asesoramiento puede seguir anclado en el pasado y recomendar acciones, como los “descansos” de la anticoncepción hormonal combinada, que motivan el abandono o, lo que es peor, fracaso del método, con la consecuencia de un embarazo no deseado. Los factores intrínsecos al método pueden aumentar la tasa de abandono, cuando éste no se adapta a las características específicas y preferencias de las pacientes. En un intento por disminuir la tasa de abandono se han desarrollado nuevas formulaciones de anticonceptivos hormonales, con la finalidad de reducir los efectos adversos y aportar beneficios adicionales que aumenten el apego.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Finer LB, et al. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States,1994 and 2001 Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2006;38:90-6. https://doi.org/10.1363/ psrh.38.090.06

  2. Vaughan B, et al. Discontinuation and resumption of contraceptive use: results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception 2008;78(4):271-83. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.05.007.

  3. Association of Reproductive Health Professinoals. Providers ´ Prospectives: Perceiver barriers to contraceptive use in Youth and Young adults. http://www.arhp.org/ publications-and-resources/studies-and-surveys/providers- prospectives-perceived-barriers-to-contraceptiveuse- in-youth-and-young-adults.

  4. Hoopes AJ, et al. low acceptability of certain contraceptive methods among young women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2018;(3):274-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpag.2017.11.008.

  5. Littlejohn KE. Hormonal contraceptive use and discontinuation because of dissatisfaction: differences by race and education. Demography 2012;49(4):1433-52. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13524-012-0127-7.

  6. Halpern V, et al. Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods of contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(10):CD004317. https:// doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004317.pub4.

  7. Zapata LB, et al. Patient understanding of oral contraceptive pill instructions related to missed pills: a systematic review. Contraception 2013;87(5):674-84. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.026.

  8. Modesto W, et al. A randomized clinical trial of the effect of intensive versus non-intensive counselling on discontinuation rates due to bleeding disturbances of three long-acting reversible contraceptives. Hum Reprod 2014;29(7):1393-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu089

  9. Godfrey EM, et al. Treatment of unscheduled bleeding in women using extended- or continuous-use combined hormonal contraception: a systematic review. Contraception 2013;87(5):567-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. contraception.2012.08.005.

  10. Momoeda M, et al. Efficacy and safety of a flexible extended regimen of ethinylestradiol/drospirenone for the treatment of dysmenorrhea: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, active-controlled study. Int J Womens Health 2017;9:295-305. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S134576.

  11. Morotti E, et al. Weight gain, body image and sexual function in young patients treated with contraceptive vaginal ring. A prospective pilot study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017;33(8):660-664. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590 .2017.1306850.

  12. Tepper NK, et al. Safety of hormonal contraceptives among women with migraine: A systematic review. Contraception 2016;94(6):630-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception. 2016.04.016.

  13. Sulak P, et al. Headaches and oral contraceptives: impact of eliminating the standard 7-day placebo interval. Headache 2007;47(1):27-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526- 4610.2007.00650.x

  14. Regidor PA, et al. Antiandrogenic and antimineralocorticoid health benefits of COC containing newer progestogens: dienogest and drospirenone. Oncotarget 2017;8(47):83334- 83342. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19833.

  15. Handel AC, et al. Risk factors for facial melasma in women: a case-control study. Br J Dermatol 2014;171(3):588-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.13059.

  16. Edelman A, et al. Continuous or extended cycle vs. cyclic use of combined hormonal contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(7):CD004695. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004695.pub3.

  17. Nelson HN, et al. Measuring oral contraceptive adherence using self-report versus pharmacy claims data. Contraception 2017;96(6):453-459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. contraception.2017.08.013.

  18. Stuart JE, et al. Factors associated with 12-month discontinuation among contraceptive pill, patch, and ring users. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121(2 Pt 1):330-6. https://doi. org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827e5898.

  19. Mulders TM, et al. Ovarian function with a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2594.

  20. Brache V, et al. Contraceptive vaginal rings: a review. Contraception 2010;82(5):418-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. contraception.2010.04.012.

  21. Teunissen AM, et al. Continuation rates of the subdermal contraceptive Implanon® and associated influencing factors. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2014;19(1):15- 21. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2013.862231.

  22. Hubacher D, et al. Menstrual pattern changes from levonorgestrel subdermal implants and DMPA: systematic review and evidence-based comparisons. Contraception 2009;80(2):113-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception. 2009.02.008.

  23. Schwallie PC, et al. The effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on pituitary and ovarian function, and the return of fertility following its discontinuation: a review. Contraception 1974;10(2):181-202.

  24. Kaunitz AM, et al. Subcutaneous DMPA vs intramuscular DMPA: a 2-year randomized study of contraceptive efficacy and bone mineral density. Contraception 2009;80(1):7-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2009.02.005.

  25. Fan G, et al. A single-arm phase III study exploring the efficacy and safety of LNG-IUS 8, a low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system (total content 13.5 mg), in an Asia-Pacific population. Contraception 2017;95(4):371- 377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2016.11.005.

  26. Chiles DP, et al. Initiation and continuation of long-acting reversible contraception in the United States military healthcare system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215(3):328. e1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.03.027.

  27. Yunker AC, et al. Incidence and risk factors for chronic pelvic pain after hysteroscopic sterilization. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2015;22(3):390-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jmig.2014.06.007.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com