Short and long acting reversible contraceptive

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Câmara, Sara
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/33997
Resumo: Overview: The daily pill, a short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC), is more used than long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) though these are highly effective, safe and less dependent on women use. It is important to identify which differences between SARC or LARC users can justify this choice.Aims: Describe and compare the two types of contraceptive methods users (age, marital status, previous history of pregnancy, level of education, age at which the method was started, level and source of knowledge, medical advice and level of satisfaction with the information received). As a secondary objective, we aimed to identify the existence of myths and misbeliefs about contraception and the reasons for choosing or discontinuation of the contraceptive method.Study Design: Observational and retrospective. Population:Women who use or had used contraception, aged 18 -50 years. Methods: A self-report and anonymous questionnaire, available in primary health care centers and hospitals. Results:In a group of 300 women, with a median of 35,6 years (18 - 50 years; s = 8,3 years), 68% (203/300) were using a contraceptive method and 28% (83/300) were no longer using it . Among these, 75% were using SARC or these corresponded to the last method used. Single women prevailed in the SARC group (p=0,002) and those with a previous pregnancy prevailed in the LARC group (p=0,002). No other statistically significant differences were identified. 86% (237/274) had a medical consultation before beginning to use a contraceptive, and 59% (139/237) were very satisfied with the information received. The control of the menstrual cycle was important for SARC users whether the using facility was important for LARC users. Conclusions:Although effective and safe,LARC where less prevalent in our study. History of previous pregnancy was the only clinically significant difference between SARC and LARC users..
id RCAP_b1320166ad4decce520e95b7d9e6a446
oai_identifier_str oai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/33997
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Short and long acting reversible contraceptiveMétodos contracetivos reversíveis de curtaFamily planning servicesContraception.Região Autónoma da MadeiraMadeira IslandcontraceçãoPlaneamneto familiarOverview: The daily pill, a short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC), is more used than long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) though these are highly effective, safe and less dependent on women use. It is important to identify which differences between SARC or LARC users can justify this choice.Aims: Describe and compare the two types of contraceptive methods users (age, marital status, previous history of pregnancy, level of education, age at which the method was started, level and source of knowledge, medical advice and level of satisfaction with the information received). As a secondary objective, we aimed to identify the existence of myths and misbeliefs about contraception and the reasons for choosing or discontinuation of the contraceptive method.Study Design: Observational and retrospective. Population:Women who use or had used contraception, aged 18 -50 years. Methods: A self-report and anonymous questionnaire, available in primary health care centers and hospitals. Results:In a group of 300 women, with a median of 35,6 years (18 - 50 years; s = 8,3 years), 68% (203/300) were using a contraceptive method and 28% (83/300) were no longer using it . Among these, 75% were using SARC or these corresponded to the last method used. Single women prevailed in the SARC group (p=0,002) and those with a previous pregnancy prevailed in the LARC group (p=0,002). No other statistically significant differences were identified. 86% (237/274) had a medical consultation before beginning to use a contraceptive, and 59% (139/237) were very satisfied with the information received. The control of the menstrual cycle was important for SARC users whether the using facility was important for LARC users. Conclusions:Although effective and safe,LARC where less prevalent in our study. History of previous pregnancy was the only clinically significant difference between SARC and LARC users..Repositório ComumCâmara, Sara2020-11-08T23:46:55Z20162016-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/33997engActa Obstet Ginecol Port 2016;10(4):298-306info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-10T02:17:05Zoai:comum.rcaap.pt:10400.26/33997Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T22:34:29.338612Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
Métodos contracetivos reversíveis de curta
title Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
spellingShingle Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
Câmara, Sara
Family planning services
Contraception.
Região Autónoma da Madeira
Madeira Island
contraceção
Planeamneto familiar
title_short Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
title_full Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
title_fullStr Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
title_full_unstemmed Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
title_sort Short and long acting reversible contraceptive
author Câmara, Sara
author_facet Câmara, Sara
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório Comum
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Câmara, Sara
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Family planning services
Contraception.
Região Autónoma da Madeira
Madeira Island
contraceção
Planeamneto familiar
topic Family planning services
Contraception.
Região Autónoma da Madeira
Madeira Island
contraceção
Planeamneto familiar
description Overview: The daily pill, a short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC), is more used than long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) though these are highly effective, safe and less dependent on women use. It is important to identify which differences between SARC or LARC users can justify this choice.Aims: Describe and compare the two types of contraceptive methods users (age, marital status, previous history of pregnancy, level of education, age at which the method was started, level and source of knowledge, medical advice and level of satisfaction with the information received). As a secondary objective, we aimed to identify the existence of myths and misbeliefs about contraception and the reasons for choosing or discontinuation of the contraceptive method.Study Design: Observational and retrospective. Population:Women who use or had used contraception, aged 18 -50 years. Methods: A self-report and anonymous questionnaire, available in primary health care centers and hospitals. Results:In a group of 300 women, with a median of 35,6 years (18 - 50 years; s = 8,3 years), 68% (203/300) were using a contraceptive method and 28% (83/300) were no longer using it . Among these, 75% were using SARC or these corresponded to the last method used. Single women prevailed in the SARC group (p=0,002) and those with a previous pregnancy prevailed in the LARC group (p=0,002). No other statistically significant differences were identified. 86% (237/274) had a medical consultation before beginning to use a contraceptive, and 59% (139/237) were very satisfied with the information received. The control of the menstrual cycle was important for SARC users whether the using facility was important for LARC users. Conclusions:Although effective and safe,LARC where less prevalent in our study. History of previous pregnancy was the only clinically significant difference between SARC and LARC users..
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
2020-11-08T23:46:55Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/33997
url http://hdl.handle.net/10400.26/33997
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Acta Obstet Ginecol Port 2016;10(4):298-306
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134907072512000