Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 4, pp 233–239 | Cite as

Perceptions of Hormonal Contraceptive Safety and Side Effects Among Low-Income Latina and Non-Latina Women

  • Sylvia Guendelman
  • Colleen Denny
  • Jane Mauldon
  • Carol Chetkovich
Article

Abstract

Objectives: We explored perceptions of the safety and side effects of oral and injectable hormonal contraceptives among low-income women at high risk of unintended pregnancy. Methods: Overall safety perceptions, specific health concerns, and the relationship between these safety perceptions and contraceptive choices were determined by focus groups and questionnaires obtained from white non-Latina (n = 19), English-speaking (n = 21), and Spanish-speaking Latina women (n = 19). Results: Uncertainty or ambivalence about the safety of oral and injectable contraceptives was reported by 41% and 70% of respondents respectively, while 20% considered these methods to be mostly harmful. Personal experiences and stories from social networks proved to be more salient than medical opinions in shaping safety perceptions. Side effects and concerns about long-term health effects were common themes. While white non-Latina women focused predominantly on physical side effects, emotional side effects also contributed to Latinas' decisions about contraceptive switching. Spanish-speaking Latinas differed from English-speaking Latinas in other attitudinal dimensions, contraceptive use prevalence, and access to contraceptive services. Conclusion: Low-income mothers lacked confidence in method safety and had many concerns about the side effects of oral and injectable contraceptives. Because such concerns can be a barrier to contraceptive use, these perceptions need to be corrected to encourage more effective use of hormonal methods and to prevent unintended pregnancies. Culturally appropriate interventions should focus on client–provider interactions, social networks, and access to care.

Unintended pregnancy hormonal contraceptives safety perceptions health concerns Latina women 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Henshaw S. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 1998;30(1):24–9, 46.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Institute of Medicine. The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families.Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Forrest JD. Epidemiology of unintended pregnancy and contraceptive use. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170:1485–9.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995. Family Planning Perspectives 1998; 30(1):4–10, 46.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Campo P, Faden RE, Gielen AC, Kass N, Anderson J. Contraceptive and sexual practices among single women with an unplanned pregnancy: Partner influences. Family Planning Perspectives 1993;25(5):215–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Forrest JD, Frost J. The family planning attitudes and experiences of low-income women. Family Planning Perspectives 1996;28(6):246–55, 277.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tanfer K, Rosenbaum E. Contraceptive perceptions and method choice among singlewomenin the United States. Studies in Family Planning 1986;17(6):269–75.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Delbanco S, Lundy J, Hoff T, Parker M, Smith M. Public knowledge and perceptions about unplanned pregnancy and contraception in three countries. Family Planning Perspectives 1997;29:70–5.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grady WR, Klepinger DH, Nelson-Wally A. Contraceptive characteristics: The perceptions and priorities of men and women. Family Planning Perspectives 1999;31(4):168–75.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Darney PD, Atkinson E, Tanner S, MacPherson S, Hellerstein S, Alvarado A. Acceptance and perceptions of NORPLANT®among users in San Francisco, USA. Studies in Family Planning 1990;21(3):152–60.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cushman LF, Kalmuss D, Davidson AR, Heartwell S, Rulin M. Beliefs about Depo-Provera among three groups of contraceptors. Advances in Contraception 1996;12:43–52.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silverman J, Torres A, Forrest JD. Barriers to contraceptive services. Family Planning Perspectives 1987;19(3):94–102.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tessler SL, Peipert JF. Perceptions of contraceptive efficacy and health effects of oral contraception.Women's Health Issues 1997;7(6):400–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Murphy P, Kirkman A, Hale RW.Anational survey ofwomen's attitudes toward oral contraception and other forms of birth control. Women's Health Issues 1995:5(2):94–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grimes D. The safety of oral contraceptives: Epidemiologic insights from the first 30 years. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992:166:1950–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, Cates W, Stewart GK, Guest F, Kowal D. Contraceptive technology, 17th Ed. New York: Ardent Media, Inc., 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trussell J, Vaughan B. Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: Results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Family Planning Perspectives 1999;31(2):64–72, 93.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chetkovich C, Mauldon J, Brindis C, Guendelman S. Informed policy making for the prevention of unwanted pregnancy: Understanding low-income women's experiences with family planning. Evaluation Review 1999;23(5):527–52.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marín G, Marín BV. Research with Hispanic populations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvia Guendelman
    • 1
  • Colleen Denny
    • 2
  • Jane Mauldon
    • 3
  • Carol Chetkovich
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  2. 2.School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  3. 3.Goldman School of Public PolicyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeley
  4. 4.John F. Kennedy School of GovernmentHarvard UniversityCambridge

Personalised recommendations