Advertisement

Advances in Contraception

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 205–213 | Cite as

Some methodological considerations of a progestin-only oral contraceptive study from a programmatic perspective

  • I-Cheng Chi
Article

Abstract

Among the limited number of reports on progestin-oral contraceptives (POCs), noncomparative studies conducted at family planning clinics have been the most often reported. This research trend will probably continue.

Generally, noncomparative studies address a number of practical issues on POC use, and such studies have made important contributions to the understanding of this contraceptive modality. However, some studies have presented results that are either difficult to extrapolate for potential users or conflict with other findings.

This article reviews several studies and suggests ways to improve the study methodology. Well-conceived,-executed, and-analyzed noncomparative studies can cost-effectively address a number of practical issues of POC use that have not been adequately addressed.

Additional topics with programmatic utility, such as the effect of local background variables on POC acceptability, and the place of POCs in the ever-increasing contraceptive spectrum, are also discussed.

Keywords

Family Planning Practical Issue Methodological Consideration Research Trend Parmi 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Resumé

Parmi les quelques rapports sur les contraceptifs oraux à la progestine (POC), on a le plus souvent cité les études non comparatives menées dans des cliniques de planning familial. Ce type de recherche aura sans doute tendance à continuer.

En général, les études non comparatives portent sur un certain nombre de questions relatives à l'utilisation des POC et elles ont largement contribué à faire comprendre les modalités de cette contraception. Certaines études ont cependant présenté des résultats qui sont, soit difficiles à extrapoler à des utilisateurs potentiels, soit en contradiction avec d'autres résultats.

Les présent article passe en revue plusieurs études et propose des moyens d'améliorer la méthodologie de recherche. Les études non comparatives bien conçues, bien exécutées et bien analysées peuvent, d'une manière efficace par rapport au coψt, examiner un certain nombre de questions pratiques concernant l'utilisation des POC qui n'ont pas encore été suffisamment étudiées.

Sont également examinés des sujets supplémentaires utiles au niveau de la programmation, tels que l'effet de variables provenant du milieu local sur l'acceptabilité des POC et la place qu'occupent les POC dans la gamme toujours croissante des contraceptifs.

Resumen

Entre el número limitado de informes sobre anticonceptivos orales con progestina (AOP), los màs frecuentes eran estudios no comparativos realizados en clínicas de planificación familiar. Es probable que continúe esta tendencia de investigación.

En general, los estudios no comparativos examinan varias cuestiones pràcticas relativas al uso de AOP y esos estudios han efectuado contribuciones importantes a la comprensión de esta modalidad anticonceptiva. Sin embargo, algunos estudios han presentado resultados que son difíciles de extrapolar para usuarias potenciales o bien estàn en conflicto con otros resultados.

Este artículo axamina varios estudios y sugiere formas de mejorar la metodología de los estudios. Los estudios no comparativos bien concebidos, ejecutados y analizados pueden examinar de un modo eficaz un función de los costos varias cuestiones pràcticas del uso de AOP que no han sido enfocadas adecuadamente.

También se tratan temas adicionales de utilidad programàtica, tales como el efecto de de variables de antecedentes locales sobre la aceptabilidad de los AOP y el lugar que ocupan los AOP en el espectro anticonceptivo, de aumento creciente.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lawson JP. Experience with norethisterone 0.35 mg daily as an oral contraceptive. Br J Fam Plann. 1982;8:84–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bisset AM, Dingwall-Fordyce I, Hamilton MIK. The progestogen-only pill: acceptability and continuation rates. Br J Fam Plann. 1992:18:47–9.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bisset AM, Dingwall-Fordyce I, Hamilton MIK. The efficiency of the progestogen-only pill as a contraceptive method. Br J Fam Plann. 1990;16:84–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Broome M, Fotherby K. Clinical experience with the progestogen-only pill. Contraception. 1990;42:489–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vessey MP, Lawless M, Yeates D, McPherson K. Progestogen-only oral contraception. Findings in a large prospective study with special reference to effectiveness. Br J Fam Plann. 1985;10:121–6.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vessey MP, Villard-Mackintosh L, Yeates D. Effectiveness of progestogen-only oral contraceptives. Br J Fam Plann. 1990;16:79.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organization's Task Force on Oral Pill. A randomized double-blind study of two combined and two progestogen-only contraceptives. Contraception. 1982;25:243–52.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trussell J, Kost K. Contraceptive failure in the United States: a critical review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann. 1987;18:237–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fotherby K. The progestogen-only contraceptive pill. Br J Fam Plann. 1982;8:7–10.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jubhari S, Lane M, Sobrero AJ. Continuous microdose (0.3 mg) quingestanol acetate as an oral contraceptive agent. Contraception. 1974;9:231–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dunson TR, Mclaurin VL, Grubb GS, Rosman AW. A multicenter clinical trial of a progestin-only oral contraceptive in lactating women. Contraception. 1993;47:22–35.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    West CP. The acceptability of a progestogen-only contraceptive during breast-feeding. Contraception. 1983;27:563–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linn S, Schoenbaum SC, Monsoon RR, Rosner B, Ryan KJ. Delay on conception for former ‘pill’ users. JAMA. 1982;247:629–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foley M, Law B, Davies J, Fotherby K. Clinical trial and laboratory investigation of a low-dose progestogen-only contraceptive — Exluton. Int J Fertil. 1973;18:246–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Population Reports. Minipill — A limited alternative for certain women. Series A, Number 3. 1975.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Knodel J, Chayvan N. Contraceptive initiation patterns in Thailand. In: Health and population studies institute of population studies. (Monograph) Bangkok, Thailand: Institute of Population Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1989.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Graham S, Fraser I. The progestogen-only mini-pill. Contraception. 1982;26:373–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Butler C, Hill H. Chlormadinone acetate as oral contraceptives — a clinical trial. Lancet. 1969;1:1116–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chi I-C, Robbins M, Balogh S. The progestogen-only pill — its place in postpartum contraception. Adv Contracept. 1992;8:93–103.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chi I-C. The safety and efficacy issues of progestogen-only contraceptives — an epidemiologic perspective. Contraception. 1993;47:1–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bhathena RK. The progestogen only pill. Br. J Fam Plann. 1986;12:1123.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howie PW. The progestogen-only pill. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;92:1001–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Vessey MP, Mears E, Andolsek L, Ogrinc-Oven M. Randomised double blind trial of four oral progestogen-only contraceptives. Lancet. 1972;1:915–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paulsen ML, Varaday A, Brown BW, Kalman SM. A randomized contraceptive trial comparing a daily progestogen with a combined oral contraceptive steroid. Contraception. 1974;9:497–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moggia AV, Harris GS, Dunson TR et al. A comparative study of a progestogen-only oral contraceptive versus non-hormonal methods in lactating women in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Contraception. 1991;44:31–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    McCann MS, Moggia AV, Higgins JE et al. The effects of a progestin-only oral contraception (levonorgestrel 0.03) on breast-feeding. Contraception. 1989;40:635–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • I-Cheng Chi
    • 1
  1. 1.Family Health InternationalResearch Triangle ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations