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

2020, Number S1

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2020; 88 (S1)

Causes of non-attachment to contraceptive methods

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

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 88-95
PDF size: 221.28 Kb.


ABSTRACT

There are several causes of abandonment or nonadherence to contraceptive methods. In general, the perception or association of adverse effects of the contraceptive method are the main cause of interruption. Most of the adverse effects of contraceptive methods are related to misconceptions or beliefs, based on myths, that are transmitted over time. Even the influence of abandonment or detachment is supported by the physician himself, who for lack of updating and advice can remain anchored in the past and recommend actions, such as the “breaks” of combined hormonal contraception, which motivate the abandonment or, which is worse, failure of the method, with the consequence of an unwanted pregnancy. The factors intrinsic to the method can increase the abandonment rate, when it does not adapt to the specific characteristics and preferences of the patients. In an attempt to reduce the dropout rate, new formulations of hormonal contraceptives have been developed, with the aim of reducing adverse effects and providing additional benefits that increase the attachment.


REFERENCES

  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