Attitudes, Awareness, Compliance and Preferences among Hormonal Contraception Users
Background: Healthcare professionals have a responsibility to help each woman select the most appropriate hormonal contraceptive according to her personal preferences, needs and circumstances.
Objective: To assess attitudes, awareness, compliance and preferences of hormonal contraceptive users.
Study Design: A cross-sectional survey conducted through self-administered, online questionnaires. One questionnaire was administered in the US and another was administered in the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Australia and Russia (Eight-Country Survey questionnaire).
Participants: Current hormonal contraceptive users, aged 18–44 years, in the general community.
Results: Questionnaires were completed by 5120 women. The mean age of the respondents was approximately 31 years and over 70% were current contraceptive pill users. Many women did not plan on having children in the next 3 years (range 44% in Russia to 77% in the US and UK), but a quick return of fertility upon contraceptive discontinuation was desired by the majority of women in all countries (range 54% in the US to 91% in Russia). Rates of discontinuation or switching to a different hormonal contraceptive in the past year ranged from 30% in Germany to 81% in Brazil. Requests to switch because of side effects ranged from 24% in Spain to 57% in Brazil. Results from the Eight-Country Survey questionnaire indicated that 42% of womenwould consider using one of the most effective contraceptive methods even if their menstrual cycle changed, 58% would accept irregular bleeding initially if they had fewer periods over time, 53% did not want/had concerns about foreign/additional estrogen in their body, 85% would prefer a monthly option with a lower hormone dose over a daily pill, 80% would consider switching contraceptives to minimize estrogen exposure and 74% would prefer an estrogen-free/progestin (progesterone congener)-only pill to avoid potential side effects from foreign/extra estrogen. Oral contraceptive users across all countries admitted missing (range 39% in the UK to 65% in Brazil) or taking a pill at the wrong time (range 12% in Spain to 67% in Brazil) in the previous 3 months. Approximately 81% of all respondents said they would consider using a method that did not require daily, weekly or monthly dosing. The proportion of women believing themselves well informed about their contraception options ranged from 30% in Russia to 86% in the US. Informed women were generally more aware of alternative methods than their uninformed counterparts. Responses also varied significantly among women in different age groups.
Conclusion: These findings demonstrate that a range of factors influence a woman’s choice of contraceptive. This highlights the importance of individualized counselling during contraceptive selection to ensure that the option recommended is tailored to the personal preferences of each woman to improve compliance, continuance and prevention of an unwanted pregnancy.
KeywordsUnintended Pregnancy Hormonal Contraceptive Unplanned Pregnancy Hormonal Contraception Oral Contraceptive User
This study was funded by Schering Corp., a division of Merck & Co. The author extends his thanks to Elaine F. Griffin MA, DPhil for editorial assistance, which was funded by Schering Corp., a division of Merck & Co. The author is an employee of Schering Corp., a division of Merck & Co.
- 7.World Health Organization. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. 2nd ed.; 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/ 9241562846.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 8]Google Scholar
- 8.WorldHealth Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 3rd ed.; 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241562668. pdf [Accessed 2010 Jul 20]Google Scholar
- 14.Frost JJ, Darroch JE, Remez L. Improving contraceptive use in the United States. Issues Brief (Alan Guttmacher Inst) 2008; 1: 1–8Google Scholar
- 15.Shulman LP, Westhoff CL. Return to fertility after use of reversible contraception. Dialogues in Contraception 2006; 10: 1–3Google Scholar
- 17.Williams L, Morrow B, Shulman H, et al. PRAMS 2002 Surveillance Report. Atlanta (GA): Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/PRAMS/2002PRAMSSurvReport/PDF/2k2 PRAMS.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 7]Google Scholar
- 22.US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010: understanding and improving health. 2nd ed., Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.healthypeople. gov/document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 7]Google Scholar
- 28.Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A, et al. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982–2002. Vital Health Stat Series, no. 350: National Center for Health Statistics; 2004 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad350.pdf [Accessed 2009 Dec 7]Google Scholar