Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Women's Health
Published in: BMC Women's Health 1/2007

Open Access 01-12-2007 | Research article

Women's attitudes towards mechanisms of action of family planning methods: survey in primary health centres in Pamplona, Spain

Authors: Jokin de Irala, Cristina Lopez del Burgo, Carmen M Lopez de Fez, Jorge Arredondo, Rafael T Mikolajczyk, Joseph B Stanford

Published in: BMC Women's Health | Issue 1/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Informed consent in family planning includes knowledge of mechanism of action. Some methods of family planning occasionally work after fertilization. Knowing about postfertilization effects may be important to some women before choosing a certain family planning method. The objective of this survey is to explore women's attitudes towards postfertilization effects of family planning methods, and beliefs and characteristics possibly associated with those attitudes.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey in a sample of 755 potentially fertile women, aged 18–49, from Primary Care Health Centres in Pamplona, Spain. Participants were given a 30-item, self-administered, anonymous questionnaire about family planning methods and medical and surgical abortion. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with women's attitudes towards postfertilization effects.

Results

The response rate was 80%. The majority of women were married, held an academic degree and had no children. Forty percent of women would not consider using a method that may work after fertilization but before implantation and 57% would not consider using one that may work after implantation. While 35.3% of the sample would stop using a method if they learned that it sometimes works after fertilization, this percentage increased to 56.3% when referring to a method that sometimes works after implantation. Women who believe that human life begins at fertilization and those who consider it is important to distinguish between natural and induced embryo loss were less likely to consider the use of a method with postfertilization effects.

Conclusion

Information about potential postfertilization effects of family planning methods may influence women's acceptance and choice of a particular family planning method. Additional studies in other populations are necessary to evaluate whether these beliefs are important to those populations.
Literature
1.
2.
Larimore WL, Stanford JB: Postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and their relationship to informed consent. Arch Fam Med. 2000, 9 (2): 126-133. 10.1001/archfami.9.2.126.CrossRefPubMed
3.
The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Hormonal contraception: recent advances and controversies. Fertil Steril. 2004, 82 (Suppl 1): S26-32.
4.
Frye CA: An overview of oral contraceptives: mechanism of action and clinical use. Neurology. 2006, 66 (6 Suppl 3): S29-36.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wertheimer RE: Emergency postcoital contraception. Am Fam Physician. 2000, 62 (10): 2287-2292.PubMed
6.
7.
Kahlenborn C, Stanford JB, Larimore WL: Postfertilization effect of hormonal emergency contraception. Ann Pharmacother. 2002, 36 (3): 465-470. 10.1345/aph.1A344.CrossRefPubMed
8.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): Emergency oral contraception. Number 25, March 2001. (Replace Practice Pattern Number 3, December 1996). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002, 78 (2): 191-198. 10.1016/S0020-7292(02)00198-4.CrossRef
9.
Trussell J, Ellertson C, Stewart F, Raymond EG, Shochet T: The role of emergency contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004, 190 (4 Suppl): S30-38. 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.063.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Lahteenmaki P, Rauramo I, Backman T: The levonorgestrel intrauterine system in contraception. Steroids. 2000, 65 (10–11): 693-697. 10.1016/S0039-128X(00)00176-8.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT: Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002, 187 (6): 1699-1708. 10.1067/mob.2002.128091.CrossRefPubMed
12.
French R, Van Vliet H, Cowan F, Mansour D, Morris S, Hughes D, Robinson A, Proctor T, Summerbell C, Logan S, et al: Hormonally impregnated intrauterine systems (IUSs) versus other forms of reversible contraceptives as effective methods of preventing pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 (3): CD001776.
13.
Mikolajczyk M, Stanford JB: Levonorgestrel emergency contraception: a joint analysis of effectiveness and mechanism of action. Fertil Steril. 2007.
14.
Romo LF, Berenson AB, Segars A: Sociocultural and religious influences on the normative contraceptive practices of Latino women in the United States. Contraception. 2004, 69: 219-225. 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.10.011.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Dye HM, Stanford JB, Alder SC, Kim HS, Murphy PA: Women and postfertilization effects of birth control: consistency of beliefs, intentions and reported use. BMC Womens Health. 2005, 5: 11-10.1186/1472-6874-5-11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Mikolajczyk RT, Stanford JB, Rauchfuss M: Factors influencing the choice to use modern natural family planning. Contraception. 2003, 67 (4): 253-258. 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00490-0.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Oddens BJ, Lehert P: Determinants of contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in Great Britain and Germany. I: Demographic factors. J Biosoc Sci. 1997, 29 (4): 415-435. 10.1017/S002193209700415X.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Oddens BJ: Determinants of contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in Great Britain and Germany. II: Psychological factors. J Biosoc Sci. 1997, 29 (4): 437-470. 10.1017/S0021932097004379.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Riphagen FE, Lehert P: A survey of contraception in five west European countries. J Biosoc Sci. 1989, 21 (1): 23-46.CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Oddens BJ, Milsom I: Contraceptive practice and attitudes in Sweden 1994. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996, 75 (10): 932-940.CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Lopez del Burgo C, Lopez de Fez C, Herranz Barbero A, Saiz Mendiguren R, de Irala J: Knowledge of the mechanisms of action of birth control methods. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2006, 49 (8): 424-433.CrossRef
24.
Gasman N, Blandon MM, Crane BB: Abortion, social inequity, and women's health: Obstetrician-gynecologists as agents of change. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2006, 94 (3): 310-316. 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.04.018.CrossRef
25.
Hessini L: Global progress in abortion advocacy and policy: an assessment of the decade since ICPD. Reprod Health Matters. 2005, 13 (25): 88-100. 10.1016/S0968-8080(05)25168-6.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Gould H, Ellertson C, Corona G: Knowledge and attitudes about the differences between emergency contraception and medical abortion among middle-class women and men of reproductive age in Mexico City. Contraception. 2002, 66 (6): 417-426. 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00410-9.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Jackson R, Schwarz EB, Freedman L, Darney P: Knowledge and willingness to use emergency contraception among low-income post-partum women. Contraception. 2000, 61 (6): 351-357. 10.1016/S0010-7824(00)00117-7.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Spinnato JA: Informed consent and the redefining of conception: a decision ill-conceived?. J Matern Fetal Med. 1998, 7 (6): 264-268. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(199811/12)7:6<264::AID-MFM2>3.0.CO;2-M.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Spinnato JA: Informed consent: are we there?. J Perinatol. 1999, 19 (6 Pt 1): 401-402. 10.1038/sj.jp.7200249.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
32.
Grady WR, Klepinger DH, Nelson-Wally A: Contraceptive characteristics: the perceptions and priorities of men and women. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999, 31 (4): 168-175. 10.2307/2991589.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Steiner MJ, Dalebout S, Condon S, Dominik R, Trussell J: Understanding risk: a randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol. 2003, 102 (4): 709-717. 10.1016/S0029-7844(03)00662-8.PubMed
34.
Trussell J, Jordan B: Mechanism of action of emergency contraceptive pills. Contraception. 2006, 74 (2): 87-89. 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.03.028.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Mikolajczyk RT, Stanford JB: The empirical and ethical questions of induced versus natural losses of preimplantation embryos. Contraception . 2007, in press: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.12.006.
Metadata
Title
Women's attitudes towards mechanisms of action of family planning methods: survey in primary health centres in Pamplona, Spain
Authors
Jokin de Irala
Cristina Lopez del Burgo
Carmen M Lopez de Fez
Jorge Arredondo
Rafael T Mikolajczyk
Joseph B Stanford
Publication date
01-12-2007
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Women's Health / Issue 1/2007
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6874
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-7-10

Other articles of this Issue 1/2007

BMC Women's Health 1/2007 Go to the issue

Study protocol

The Women's international study of long-duration oestrogen after menopause (WISDOM): a randomised controlled trial

Research article

Knowledge and use of emergency contraception among women in the Western Cape province of South Africa: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Correlates of women's cancer screening and contraceptive knowledge among female emergency department patients

Research article

Differences in Menopausal Hormone Therapy Use among Women in Germany between 1998 and 2003

Research article

Predisposing factors for bacterial vaginosis, treatment efficacy and pregnancy outcome among term deliveries; results from a preterm delivery study

Research article

Associations of depression and depressive symptoms with preeclampsia: results from a Peruvian case-control study