Advertisement
AJOG Home
Advanced SearchSave search
Research Gynecology| Volume 213, ISSUE 1, P46.e1-46.e6, July 01, 2015

The role of contraceptive attributes in women’s contraceptive decision making

Published:January 30, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.051
The role of contraceptive attributes in women’s contraceptive decision making
Previous ArticleSpatial analysis of advanced-stage ovarian cancer mortality in California
Next ArticleRobotic surgery in supermorbidly obese patients with endometrial cancer

      Objective

      Contraceptive methods have differing attributes. Women’s preferences for these attributes may influence contraceptive decision making. Our objective was to identify women’s contraceptive preferences among women initiating a new contraceptive method.

      Study Design

      We conducted a cross-sectional, self-administered survey of women’s contraceptive preferences at the time of enrollment into the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Participants were asked to rank the importance of 15 contraceptive attributes on a 3-point scale (1 = not at all important, 2 = somewhat important, and 3 = very important) and then to rank the 3 attributes that were the most important when choosing a contraceptive method. The survey also contained questions about prior contraceptive experience and barriers to contraceptive use. Information about demographic and reproductive characteristics was collected through the CHOICE Project baseline survey.

      Results

      There were 2590 women who completed the survey. Our sample was racially and socioeconomically diverse. Method attributes with the highest importance score (mean score [SD]) were effectiveness (2.97 [0.18]), safety (2.96 [0.22]), affordability (2.61 [0.61]), whether the method is long lasting (2.58 [0.61]), and whether the method is “forgettable” (2.54 [0.66]). The attributes most likely to be ranked by respondents among the top 3 attributes included effectiveness (84.2%), safety (67.8%), and side effects of the method (44.6%).

      Conclusion

      Multiple contraceptive attributes influence decision making and no single attribute drives most women’s decisions. Tailoring communication and helping women make complex tradeoffs between attributes can better support their contraceptive decisions and may assist them in making value-consistent choices. This process could improve continuation and satisfaction.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Mosher W.D.
        • Jones J.
        Use of contraception in the United States: 1982-2008.
        Vital Health Stat 23. 2010; 29: 1-44
        View in Article
        • O'Connor A.M.
        Validation of a decisional conflict scale.
        Med Decis Making. 1995; 15: 25-30
        View in Article
        • Lessard L.N.
        • Karasek D.
        • Ma S.
        • et al.
        Contraceptive features preferred by women at high risk of unintended pregnancy.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012; 44: 194-200
        View in Article
        • Mansour D.
        International survey to assess women's attitudes regarding choice of daily versus nondaily female hormonal contraception.
        Int J Womens Health. 2014; 6: 367-375
        View in Article
        • Donnelly K.Z.
        • Foster T.C.
        • Thompson R.
        What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making.
        Contraception. 2014; 90: 280-287
        View in Article
        • Grady W.R.
        • Klepinger D.H.
        • Nelson-Wally A.
        Contraceptive characteristics: the perceptions and priorities of men and women.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 1999; 31: 168-175
        View in Article
        • Lamvu G.
        • Steiner M.J.
        • Condon S.
        • Hartmann K.
        Consistency between most important reasons for using contraception and current method used: the influence of health care providers.
        Contraception. 2006; 73: 399-403
        View in Article
        • Trussell J.
        Contraceptive failure in the United States.
        Contraception. 2011; 83: 397-404
        View in Article
        • Secura G.M.
        • Allsworth J.E.
        • Madden T.
        • Mullersman J.L.
        • Peipert J.F.
        The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 115.e1-115.e7
        View in Article
        • Madden T.
        • Mullersman J.L.
        • Omvig K.J.
        • Secura G.M.
        • Peipert J.F.
        Structured contraceptive counseling provided by the Contraceptive CHOICE Project.
        Contraception. 2013; 88: 243-249
        View in Article
        • Peipert J.F.
        • Madden T.
        • Allsworth J.E.
        • Secura G.M.
        Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1291-1297
        View in Article
        • Finer L.B.
        • Jerman J.
        • Kavanaugh M.L.
        Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007-2009.
        Fertil Steril. 2012; 98: 893-897
        View in Article
        • Halpern V.
        • Lopez L.M.
        • Grimes D.A.
        • Gallo M.F.
        Strategies to improve adherence and acceptability of hormonal methods of contraception.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 4: CD004317
        View in Article
        • Backman T.
        • Huhtala S.
        • Luoto R.
        • Tuominen J.
        • Rauramo I.
        • Koskenvuo M.
        Advance information improves user satisfaction with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99: 608-613
        View in Article
        • Garbers S.
        • Meserve A.
        • Kottke M.
        • Hatcher R.
        • Chiasson M.A.
        Tailored health messaging improves contraceptive continuation and adherence: results from a randomized controlled trial.
        Contraception. 2012; 86: 536-542
        View in Article

      Article Info

      Publication History

      Published online: January 30, 2015
      Accepted: January 29, 2015
      Received in revised form: November 26, 2014
      Received: September 16, 2014

      Footnotes

      This research was supported in part by a grant from the Society of Family Planning award number 3-1 and by award number K23HD070979 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development . Neither funding source had any role in the study design; the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; or the decision to submit for publication.

      T.M. serves on a scientific advisory board for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals and on a data safety monitoring board for phase-IV safety studies of Bayer contraceptive products. R.N. was employed by Express Scripts at the time of the study. M.P. was previously on the US Medication Adherence Advisory Board for Merck & Co, Inc (2011 through 2013) and currently has an investigator-initiated research grant funded by Merck & Co, Inc (2014 through 2015). J.F.P. receives research funding from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, and Merck & Co, Inc, and serves on an advisory boards for Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, TEVA Pharmaceuticals, and MicroCHIPS. G.M.S. reports no potential conflict of interest.

      Cite this article as: Madden T, Secura GM, Nease RF, et al. The role of contraceptive attributes in women’s contraceptive decision making. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;213:46.e1-6.

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.01.051

      Copyright

      © 2015 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX