The personal experience of female obstetricians and gynaecologists with contraceptive use influences the guidance and prescription of contraceptive methods: a web-survey.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-30 DOI:10.1080/13625187.2024.2349038
Mariana R M Canela, Luiz G O Brito, Agnaldo Lopes Silva-Filho, Luis Bahamondes, Cássia R T Juliato
{"title":"The personal experience of female obstetricians and gynaecologists with contraceptive use influences the guidance and prescription of contraceptive methods: a web-survey.","authors":"Mariana R M Canela, Luiz G O Brito, Agnaldo Lopes Silva-Filho, Luis Bahamondes, Cássia R T Juliato","doi":"10.1080/13625187.2024.2349038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the influence of the personal experience of female obstetricians and gynaecologists (Obst/Gyns) who utilise contraceptive methods on the provision of these methods.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous online web-based survey was carried out with female Obst/Gyns. The instrument contained questions about their current and previous contraceptive methods use, factors that influenced the choice and satisfaction with the ongoing method, as well as the occurrence of adverse events. They were also asked whether the experience of any adverse events influenced their decision in prescribing any particular contraceptive method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>476/9000 (5.3%) female Obst/Gyns answered the survey. The most common contraceptive in use was the 52-mg levonorgestrel-intrauterine device (52-mg LNG-IUD) (34%), followed by non-Long-Acting Reversible Contraception hormonal methods (21.2%). More than half of the respondents (57.6%) reported having some adverse effects and 18.7% reported that the personal experience of an adverse effect with the use of a contraceptive method influenced the prescription of that method.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Half of female Obst/Gyns encountered adverse events linked to contraceptive usage. Additionally, almost one-fifth believe that their own encounter with adverse effects from a contraceptive method impacts their decision to prescribe the same method.</p>","PeriodicalId":50491,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2024.2349038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the influence of the personal experience of female obstetricians and gynaecologists (Obst/Gyns) who utilise contraceptive methods on the provision of these methods.

Methods: An anonymous online web-based survey was carried out with female Obst/Gyns. The instrument contained questions about their current and previous contraceptive methods use, factors that influenced the choice and satisfaction with the ongoing method, as well as the occurrence of adverse events. They were also asked whether the experience of any adverse events influenced their decision in prescribing any particular contraceptive method.

Results: 476/9000 (5.3%) female Obst/Gyns answered the survey. The most common contraceptive in use was the 52-mg levonorgestrel-intrauterine device (52-mg LNG-IUD) (34%), followed by non-Long-Acting Reversible Contraception hormonal methods (21.2%). More than half of the respondents (57.6%) reported having some adverse effects and 18.7% reported that the personal experience of an adverse effect with the use of a contraceptive method influenced the prescription of that method.

Conclusion: Half of female Obst/Gyns encountered adverse events linked to contraceptive usage. Additionally, almost one-fifth believe that their own encounter with adverse effects from a contraceptive method impacts their decision to prescribe the same method.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
妇产科女医生使用避孕药具的个人经历对避孕方法的指导和处方的影响:一项网络调查。
目的:评估使用避孕方法的妇产科女医生的个人经历对提供这些方法的影响:评估使用避孕方法的女性妇产科医生(Obst/Gyns)的个人经历对提供这些方法的影响:方法: 对女性妇产科医生进行匿名在线网络调查。调查内容包括她们当前和以往使用的避孕方法、影响选择的因素、对当前方法的满意度以及不良事件的发生情况。她们还被问及,任何不良事件的经历是否影响了她们开具任何特定避孕方法处方的决定:476/9000(5.3%)名妇产科女医生回答了调查。最常用的避孕方法是 52 毫克左炔诺孕酮宫内节育器(52 毫克 LNG-IUD )(34%),其次是非长效可逆避孕激素方法(21.2%)。半数以上的受访者(57.6%)表示曾有过一些不良反应,18.7%的受访者表示个人在使用某种避孕方法时的不良反应经历影响了对该方法的处方:结论:半数妇产科女医生遇到过与使用避孕药具有关的不良反应。此外,将近五分之一的妇产科医生认为,她们自己在使用避孕方法时遇到的不良反应会影响她们开具相同避孕方法处方的决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
11.80%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Official Journal of the European Society of Contraception and Reproductive Health, The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care publishes original peer-reviewed research papers as well as review papers and other appropriate educational material.
期刊最新文献
A randomised double-blind trial to determine the bleeding profile of the prolonged-release contraceptive dienogest 2 mg/ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg versus an immediate-release formulation of drospirenone 3 mg/ethinylestradiol 0.02 mg. Medical termination of pregnancy: people's expectations and experiences in the Netherlands. Neighbourhood environment and early menarche among adolescent girls of five countries. Postpartum contraception provision across Europe: preliminary findings from a multi country survey. Response to Daungsupawong and Wiwanitkit's Letter to the Editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1