Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 749–763 | Cite as

Attitudes, Awareness, Compliance and Preferences among Hormonal Contraception Users

A Global, Cross-Sectional, Self-Administered, Online Survey
  • David J. Hooper
Original Research Article

Abstract

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Blumenthal PD, Edelman A. Hormonal contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 670–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huber JC, Bentz EK, Ott J, et al. Non-contraceptive benefits of oral contraceptives. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2008; 9: 2317–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maia HJ, Casoy J. Non-contraceptive health benefits of oral contraceptives. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008; 13: 17–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spencer AL, Bonnema R, McNamara MC. Helping women choose appropriate hormonal contraception: update on risks, benefits, and indications. Am J Med 2009; 122: 497–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frost JJ, Darroch JE. Factors associated with contraceptive choice and inconsistent method use, United States, 2004. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2008; 40: 94–104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. ACOG practice bulletin, no. 73: use of hormonal contraception in women with coexisting medical conditions. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 1453–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Oddens BJ. Women’s satisfaction with birth control: a population survey of physical and psychological effects of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, condoms, natural family planning, and sterilization among 1466 women. Contraception 1999; 59: 277–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones KP. Oral contraception: current use and attitudes. Contraception 1999; 59(1 Suppl.): 17S–20SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    den Tonkelaar D, Oddens BJ. Factors influencing women’s satisfaction with birth control methods. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2001; 6: 153–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frost JJ, Singh S, Finer LB. Factors associated with contraceptive use and nonuse, United States, 2004. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2007; 39: 90–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frost JJ, Singh S, Finer LB. US women’s one-year contraceptive use patterns, 2004. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2007; 39: 48–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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. 15.
    Shulman LP, Westhoff CL. Return to fertility after use of reversible contraception. Dialogues in Contraception 2006; 10: 1–3Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30: 24–9, 46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2006; 38: 90–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Custer M, Waller K, Vernon S, et al. Unintended pregnancy rates among a US military population. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2008; 22: 195–200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Postlethwaite D, Armstrong MA, Hung YY, et al. Pregnancy outcomes by pregnancy intention in a managed care setting. Matern Child Health J 2010; 14: 227–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, et al. Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect 1999; 31: 56–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 23.
    Kost K, Landry DJ, Darroch JE. The effects of pregnancy planning status on birth outcomes and infant care. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30: 223–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Baydar N. Consequences for children of their birth planning status. Fam Plann Perspect 1995; 27: 228–34, 245PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    David HP, Dytrych Z, Matejcek Z. Born unwanted: observations from the Prague study. Am Psychol 2003; 58: 224–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Skouby SO. Contraceptive use and behavior in the 21st century: a comprehensive study across five European countries. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2004; 9: 57–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lete I, Doval JL, Perez-Campos E, et al. Self-described impact of noncompliance among users of a combined hormonal contraceptive method. Contraception 2008; 77: 276–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Burnhill MS. Compliance, counseling and satisfaction with oral contraceptives: a prospective evaluation. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30: 89–92, 104PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenberg M, Waugh MS. Causes and consequences of oral contraceptive noncompliance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180: S276–S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huber LR, Hogue CJ, Stein AD, et al. Contraceptive use and discontinuation: findings from the contraceptive history, initiation, and choice study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194: 1290–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Potter L, Oakley D, de Leon-Wong E, et al. Measuring compliance among oral contraceptive users. Fam Plann Perspect 1996; 28: 154–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David J. Hooper
    • 1
  1. 1.Global Market ResearchSchering Corporation, a division of Merck & Co.KenilworthUSA

Personalised recommendations