Skip to main content
Top
Published in: PharmacoEconomics 4/2004

01-03-2004 | Original Research Article

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

Authors: Annoesjka Novák, Christine de la Loge, Linda Abetz

Published in: PharmacoEconomics | Issue 4/2004

Login to get access

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.
Footnotes
1
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ruusuvaara L, Johansson ED. Contraceptive strategies for young women in the 21st century. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1999; 4 (4): 255–63PubMedCrossRef Ruusuvaara L, Johansson ED. Contraceptive strategies for young women in the 21st century. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1999; 4 (4): 255–63PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference 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): 108–14PubMed 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): 108–14PubMed
3.
go back to reference Burkmann RT. Oral contraceptives: current status. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44 (1): 62–72CrossRef Burkmann RT. Oral contraceptives: current status. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001; 44 (1): 62–72CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Westhoff C. Criteria for appropriate birth control. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001; 15 Suppl. 3: 19–22PubMed Westhoff C. Criteria for appropriate birth control. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001; 15 Suppl. 3: 19–22PubMed
6.
go back to reference Coukell AJ, Balfour JA. Levonorgestrel subdermal implants: a review of contraceptive efficacy and acceptability. Drugs 1998; 55 (6): 861–87PubMedCrossRef Coukell AJ, Balfour JA. Levonorgestrel subdermal implants: a review of contraceptive efficacy and acceptability. Drugs 1998; 55 (6): 861–87PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Burkmann RT. Compliance and other issues in contraception. Int J Fertil Womens Med 1999; 44 (5): 234–40 Burkmann RT. Compliance and other issues in contraception. Int J Fertil Womens Med 1999; 44 (5): 234–40
8.
go back to reference Branden PS. Contraceptive choice and patient compliance: the health care provider’s challenge. J Nurse Midwifery 1998; 43 (6): 471–82PubMedCrossRef Branden PS. Contraceptive choice and patient compliance: the health care provider’s challenge. J Nurse Midwifery 1998; 43 (6): 471–82PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Schulman LP. Controlled trial with a monthly injectable contraceptive in the USA. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001; 15 Suppl. 3: 15–8 Schulman LP. Controlled trial with a monthly injectable contraceptive in the USA. Gynecol Endocrinol 2001; 15 Suppl. 3: 15–8
10.
go back to reference Kaunitz AM. Lunelle monthly injectable contraceptive: an effective, safe, and convenient new birth control option. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2001; 265 (3): 119–23PubMedCrossRef Kaunitz AM. Lunelle monthly injectable contraceptive: an effective, safe, and convenient new birth control option. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2001; 265 (3): 119–23PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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): 221–30PubMedCrossRef 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): 221–30PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference 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): 277–86PubMedCrossRef 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): 277–86PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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): 36–40PubMed 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): 36–40PubMed
14.
go back to reference 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): 161–6PubMedCrossRef 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): 161–6PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference 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): 359–67PubMedCrossRef 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): 359–67PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Rosenfield JA, Zahorik PM, Saint W, et al. Women’s satisfaction with birth control. J Fam Pract 1993; 36 (2): 169–73 Rosenfield JA, Zahorik PM, Saint W, et al. Women’s satisfaction with birth control. J Fam Pract 1993; 36 (2): 169–73
17.
go back to reference Spencer BE, Jones V, Elstein M. The acceptability of the contraceptive vaginal ring. Br J Fam Plann 1986; 12: 82–7 Spencer BE, Jones V, Elstein M. The acceptability of the contraceptive vaginal ring. Br J Fam Plann 1986; 12: 82–7
18.
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference 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 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.
go back to reference 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): 187–94PubMedCrossRef 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): 187–94PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference 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): 979–92PubMedCrossRef 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): 979–92PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Van de Vijver F, Leung K. Methods and data analysis for crosscultural research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1997 Van de Vijver F, Leung K. Methods and data analysis for crosscultural research. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1997
23.
go back to reference 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: 469–75PubMedCrossRef 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: 469–75PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference 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): 585–93PubMedCrossRef 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): 585–93PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference 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 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
26.
go back to reference Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978 Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978
27.
go back to reference Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334CrossRef Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297–334CrossRef
28.
go back to reference 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: 1159–65PubMedCrossRef 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: 1159–65PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference 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 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
30.
go back to reference 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: 925–32PubMedCrossRef 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: 925–32PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Data on file. Rotterdam: SKIM Analytical, 2001 Data on file. Rotterdam: SKIM Analytical, 2001
32.
go back to reference Moos MK, Bartholomew NE, Lohr KN. Counseling in the clinical setting to prevent unintended pregnancy: an evidencebased research agenda. Contraception 2003; 67: 115–32 Moos MK, Bartholomew NE, Lohr KN. Counseling in the clinical setting to prevent unintended pregnancy: an evidencebased research agenda. Contraception 2003; 67: 115–32
Metadata
Title
Development and Validation of an Acceptability and Satisfaction Questionnaire for a Contraceptive Vaginal Ring, NuvaRing®
Authors
Annoesjka Novák
Christine de la Loge
Linda Abetz
Publication date
01-03-2004
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
PharmacoEconomics / Issue 4/2004
Print ISSN: 1170-7690
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2027
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200422040-00003

Other articles of this Issue 4/2004

PharmacoEconomics 4/2004 Go to the issue