Skip to main content

Development and Validation of an Acceptability and Satisfaction Questionnaire for a Contraceptive Vaginal Ring, NuvaRing®

PharmacoEconomics volume 22, pages 245–256 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective: To validate an acceptability questionnaire for NuvaRing®, a new combined contraceptive vaginal ring.

Methods: A 21-item questionnaire was developed covering: ease of ring use, ease of package use, clarity of instructions, sexual comfort, cycle-related characteristics, compliance and satisfaction. A total of 2145 women completed the questionnaire after 3, 6 or 13 cycles of NuvaRing® use. The psychometric properties and predictive value of the questionnaire were assessed using cycle 3 data (n = 1950). The quality of completed questionnaires, item content analysis, construct validity, internal consistency reliability, known groups validity and predictive validity were evaluated.

Results: Excluding non-ordinal items, 0.6% of the data were missing. Principal component analysis of 15 ordinal items indicated that two hypothesised dimensions (‘ease of package use’ and ‘clarity of instructions’ were consistently linked and so were combined into a single‘ ease of comprehension’ scale. Item convergent validity (the degree of correlation between an item and its own scale) was 100% for ‘ease of ring use’ (r = 0.44) and ‘satisfaction’ (r = 0.58), 83% for ‘ease of comprehension’ (r = 0.25–0.62) and 67% (r = 0.38–0.54) for ‘sexual comfort’, but 0% for ‘cycle-related characteristics’ (r = 0.31). Item discriminant validity (the degree to which an item correlates with its own scale compared with other scales) was ≥96% for all dimensions. Internal consistency reliability was acceptable for all dimensions (adjusted Cronbach’s α coefficient >0.70). Satisfaction was higher than in the complementary groups for respondents who had no adverse events, chose NuvaRing® as the best method of contraception or completed the study; this indicated good known groups validity. Low satisfaction with the method was a good predictor of early discontinuation after cycle 3, indicating that the questionnaire had good predictive validity.

Conclusions: The acceptability questionnaire has good psychometric properties and can predict early discontinuation of the NuvaRing® vaginal ring method of contraception.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

49,54 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Table VII

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. Ruusuvaara L, Johansson ED. Contraceptive strategies for young women in the 21st century. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1999; 4 (4): 255–63

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Vree ML, Schmidt J. A large observational clinical evaluation of a desogestrel-containing combiphasic oral contraceptive in Germany. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2001; 6 (2): 108–14

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Burkmann RT. Oral contraceptives: current status. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44 (1): 62–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc. International survey of birth control methods and what women want [online]. Available from URL: http://www.birthcontrolresources.com [Accessed 2001 Sep 21]

  5. Westhoff C. Criteria for appropriate birth control. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001; 15 Suppl. 3: 19–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Coukell AJ, Balfour JA. Levonorgestrel subdermal implants: a review of contraceptive efficacy and acceptability. Drugs 1998; 55 (6): 861–87

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Burkmann RT. Compliance and other issues in contraception. Int J Fertil Womens Med 1999; 44 (5): 234–40

    Google Scholar 

  8. Branden PS. Contraceptive choice and patient compliance: the health care provider’s challenge. J Nurse Midwifery 1998; 43 (6): 471–82

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schulman LP. Controlled trial with a monthly injectable contraceptive in the USA. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001; 15 Suppl. 3: 15–8

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kaunitz AM. Lunelle monthly injectable contraceptive: an effective, safe, and convenient new birth control option. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2001; 265 (3): 119–23

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Peterson AE, Perez-Escamilla R, Labboka MH, et al. Multicenter study of the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM) III: effectiveness, duration and satisfaction with reduced clientprovider contact. Contraception 2000; 62 (5): 221–30

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Oddens BJ. Women’s satisfaction with birth control: a population survey of physical and psychological effects of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, natural family planning, and sterilisation among 1466 women. Contraception 1999; 59 (5): 277–86

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kirkman RJ, Bromham DR, O’Connor TP, et al. Prospective multicentre study comparing norgestrel implants with a combined contraceptive pill: final results. Br J Fam Plann 1999; 25 (2): 36–40

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sulak P, Lippman J, Siu C, et al. Clinical comparison of triphasic norgestimate/35 micrograms ethinyl estradiol and monophasic northindrone acetate/20 micrograms ethinyl estradiol: cycle control, lipid effects and user satisfaction. Contraception 1999; 59 (3): 161–6

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Del Carmen Cravioto M, Alvarado G, Canto-de-Cetina T, et al. A multicenter comparative study on the efficacy, safety and acceptability of the contraceptive subdermal implants Norplant and Norplant II. Contraception 1997; 55 (6): 359–67

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosenfield JA, Zahorik PM, Saint W, et al. Women’s satisfaction with birth control. J Fam Pract 1993; 36 (2): 169–73

    Google Scholar 

  17. Spencer BE, Jones V, Elstein M. The acceptability of the contraceptive vaginal ring. Br J Fam Plann 1986; 12: 82–7

    Google Scholar 

  18. Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L. Validation of NuvaRing acceptability questionnaire. Poster presented at the Meetings of the International Society of Quality of Life Research; 2001 Nov 7–10; Amsterdam

  19. Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L. Evaluation of NuvaRing acceptability in 14 countries. Poster presented at International Federation of Fertility Societies 17th World Congress on Fertility and Sterility; 2001 Nov 25–30; Melbourne

  20. Novak A, de la Loge C, Abetz L. The combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing: an international study of user acceptability. Contraception 2003 Mar; 67 (3): 187–94

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lohr KN, Aranson NK, Alonso J, et al. Evaluating quality-oflife and health status instruments: development of scientific review criteria. Clin Ther 1996; 18 (5): 979–92

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Van de Vijver F, Leung K. Methods and data analysis for crosscultural research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roumen FJME, Apter D, Mulders TMT, et al. Efficacy, tolerability and acceptability of a novel contraceptive vaginal ring releasing etonogestrel and ethinyl oestradiol. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 469–75

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Dieben TOM, Roumen FJME, Apter D. Efficacy, cycle control and user acceptability of a novel combined contraceptive vaginal ring. Obstet Gynecol 2002 Sep; 100 (3): 585–93

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Hays R, Anderson R, Revicki DA. Assessing reliability and validity of measurement in clinical trials. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM, editors. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998: 169–82

    Google Scholar 

  26. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978

    Google Scholar 

  27. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ware Jr JE, Kosinski M, Gandek B, et al. The factor structure of the SF-36 Health Survey in 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1159–65

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Acquadro C, Jambon B, Ellis D, et al. Language and translation issues. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): LippincottRaven, 1996: 575–85

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wagner AK, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, et al. Cross-cultural comparisons of the content of SF-36 translations across 10 countries: results from the IQOLA Project. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 925–32

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Data on file. Rotterdam: SKIM Analytical, 2001

  32. Moos MK, Bartholomew NE, Lohr KN. Counseling in the clinical setting to prevent unintended pregnancy: an evidencebased research agenda. Contraception 2003; 67: 115–32

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by N.V. Organon, Oss, The Netherlands. At the time of the study, Mrs Novák was an employee of N.V. Organon, Oss, The Netherlands.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Health Economics dpt., N.V. Organon, Molenstraat 110, 5340 BH, Oss, The Netherlands

    Annoesjka Novák

  2. MAPI Values, Lyon, France

    Christine de la Loge

  3. MAPI Values, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK

    Linda Abetz

Authors
  1. Annoesjka Novák
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christine de la Loge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linda Abetz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annoesjka Novák.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Novák, A., de la Loge, C. & Abetz, L. Development and Validation of an Acceptability and Satisfaction Questionnaire for a Contraceptive Vaginal Ring, NuvaRing®. PharmacoEconomics 22, 245–256 (2004). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422040-00003

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422040-00003

Keywords

  • Predictive Validity
  • Internal Consistency Reliability
  • Contraceptive Method
  • Group Validity
  • Combine Oral Contraceptive