Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Open Medicine

formerly Central European Journal of Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Darzynkiewicz, Zbigniew


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.221

CiteScore 2018: 1.01

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.329
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.479

ICV 2017: 152.94

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2391-5463
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 6, Issue 5

Issues

Volume 10 (2015)

Combined hormone contraceptive choice experience in Czech Republic

Tomas Fait
Published Online: 2011-08-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0062-9

Abstract

The aim of the prospective, multicenter project was to evaluate the effect of standardized information on the decision of woman when selecting application routes for combined hormonal contraceptives (CC). Selection the route of CC’s administration before and after consultation with the physician was evaluated on the group of 1326 women in 125 centres in the Czech Republic using a questionnaire. Analysis of the difference between the intended (4,1%) and selected (33,9%, CI 95% 31%–38%, 451 women) contraception shows that the vaginal ring preference increased by 29,8% (CI 97,5% 26,9%–32,8%, p < 0,0001). The difference for the weekly patch after (5,7%) and prior (4,2%) to the counseling of 1,4% was borderline statistically significant (CI 97,5%–0,002%–3,0%, p = 0,05). Preference of COC remained practically unchanged at 53,5%. Vaginal ring was selected by 45,2% of undecided women and 28,0% of women, who considered other than combined hormonal contraception. Easibility of application, efficacy and cycle control are the most important predictors for contraception choice. Following expert advice, including information on all forms of combined oral contraceptives, more than 33% of women chose the latest application form of combined hormonal contraceptives - vaginal ring.

Keywords: Combined hormonal contraception; Application routes; Pill; Vaginal ring; Patch; CHOICE project

  • [1] Fait T. Importance for the consultation for combined hormonal contraception choice. Ces Gynek 2011, 76,2: 140–144 Google Scholar

  • [2] Fiebig DG, Knox S, Viney R et al. Preferences for new and existing contraceptive products. Health Econ. 2010 Nov 24. [Epub ahead of print] Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [3] Kaminskyy V., Bitzer J., Tatarchuk T., Oddens B. Contraceptive health education research program in women considering combined hormone contraception. Eur J Contracept Health Care 2010, 15,Suppl 1: 57 Google Scholar

  • [4] Kocourkova J., Fait T. Changes in contraceptive practice and the transition of reproduction pattern in the Czech population. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2011, 16,3:161–172 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2011.574750CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [5] Kost K, Singh S, Vaughan B et al. Estimates of contraceptive failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception. 2008; 77(1): 10–21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.09.013Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [6] Lete I., Doval JL., Pérez-Campos E. et al. Factors affecting women’s selection of a combined hormonal contraceptive method: the TEAM-06 Spanish crosssectional study. Contraception 2007, 76(2), p. 77–83 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.04.014CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [7] Saeed G.A., Fakhar S, Rahim F, Tabassum S. Change in trend of contraceptive uptake-effect of educational leaflets and counselling. Contraception 2008, 77, p. 377–381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.01.011CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Shunmann C, Glacier A. Specialist contraceptive counselling and provision after termination of pregnancy improves uptake of long-acting methods but does not prevent repeat abortion: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2006, 21: 2296–2303 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del168CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [9] May WL., Johnson WD. A SAS macro for constructing simultaneous confidence intervals for multinomial proportions. Computer methods and programs in Biomedicine 1997, 53, p. 153–162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2607(97)01809-9CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2011-08-09

Published in Print: 2011-10-01


Citation Information: Open Medicine, Volume 6, Issue 5, Pages 582–587, ISSN (Online) 2391-5463, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-011-0062-9.

Export Citation

© 2011 Versita Warsaw. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Kirk D Wyatt, Ryan T Anderson, Douglas Creedon, Victor M Montori, John Bachman, Patricia Erwin, and Annie LeBlanc
BMC Women's Health, 2014, Volume 14, Number 1

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in