Different Perceptions among Women and Their Physicians Regarding Contraceptive Counseling: Results from the TANCO Survey in Brazil

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The optimal use of contraceptive methods requires that women participate in targeted choice of methods that meet their individual needs and expectations. The Thinking About Needs in Contraception (TANCO) study is a quantitative online survey of the views of health professionals and women on aspects of contraceptive counseling and contraceptive use.

Methods Physicians and women attending clinics for contraception were invited to complete online questionnaires. The research explored the knowledge and use of contraceptive methods, satisfaction with the current method and interest in receiving more information on all methods. Aspects related to contraceptive practice among physicians were gathered in parallel. The results obtained in the Brazilian research were compared with those of the European research, which involved 11 countries.

Results There was a high prevalence of contraceptive use and general satisfaction with the current method. A total of 63% of the women were using short-acting contraceptive (SAC) methods, and 9% were using a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC). Sixty-six percent of women were interested in receiving more information on all methods; 69% of women said they would consider LARC if they received more comprehensive information about it. Health professionals tend to underestimate the interest of women in receiving information about contraception in general, and more specifically about LARCs.

Conclusion Despite the high levels of use and satisfaction with the current methods, women were interested in receiving more information on all contraceptive methods. Structured contraceptive counseling based on individual needs and expectations may lead to greater knowledge and a greater likelihood of proper contraceptive choice.

Resumo

Objetivo A utilização ideal de métodos contraceptivos requer que as mulheres participem da escolha orientada sobre métodos que atendam às suas necessidades e expectativas individuais. O estudo Thinking About Needs in Contraception (TANCO)—Pensando nas Necessidades em Contracepção—é uma pesquisa quantitativa online de opiniões de profissionais de saúde e de mulheres sobre aspectos do aconselhamento contraceptivo e uso de anticoncepcionais.

Métodos Médicos e mulheres que frequentam consultórios de atendimento visando contracepção foram convidados a preencher questionários online. A pesquisa explorou o conhecimento e o uso de métodos contraceptivos, a satisfação com o método atual, e o interesse em receber mais informações sobre todos os métodos. Aspectos relacionados à prática contraceptiva entre médicos foram reunidos em paralelo. Os resultados obtidos na pesquisa brasileira foram comparados aos da pesquisa europeia, que envolveu 11 países.

Resultados Houve alta prevalência do uso de contraceptivos e satisfação geral com o método atual. Sessenta e três por cento das mulheres estavam usando métodos de curta duração (SAC, na sigla em inglês), e 9% estavam usando um método de longa ação (LARC, na sigla em inglês). Sessenta e seis por cento das mulheres estavam interessadas em receber mais informações sobre todos os métodos; 69% das mulheres disseram que considerariam um LARC se recebessem informações mais abrangentes sobre esse método. Os profissionais de saúde tendem a subestimar o interesse das mulheres em receber informações sobre a contracepção em geral e, mais especificamente, sobre os LARC.

Conclusão Apesar dos altos níveis de uso e satisfação com os métodos atuais, as mulheres estavam interessadas em receber mais informações sobre todos os métodos contraceptivos. O aconselhamento contraceptivo estruturado, baseado nas necessidades e expectativas individuais pode levar ao maior conhecimento e à maior probabilidade de escolha contraceptiva adequada.

Contributors

All authors participated in the concept and design of the present study; analysis and interpretation of data; draft or revision of the manuscript; and they have approved the manuscript as submitted. All authors are responsible for the reported research.

• References

• 1 Dehlendorf C, Krajewski C, Borrero S. Contraceptive counseling: best practices to ensure quality communication and enable effective contraceptive use. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 57 (04) 659-673 . Doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000059
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Dehlendorf C, Kimport K, Levy K, Steinauer J. A qualitative analysis of approaches to contraceptive counseling. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2014; 46 (04) 233-240 . Doi: 10.1363/46e2114
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Wyatt KD, Anderson RT, Creedon D, Montori VM, Bachman J, Erwin P, LeBlanc A. Women's values in contraceptive choice: a systematic review of relevant attributes included in decision aids. BMC Womens Health 2014; 14 (01) 28 . Doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-28
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Donnelly KZ, Foster TC, Thompson R. What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making. Contraception 2014; 90 (03) 280-287 . Doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.04.012
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000-2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002; 34 (06) 294-303 . Doi: 10.1363/3429402
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011; 83 (05) 397-404 . Doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.01.021
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Tavares LS, Leite IC, Telles FSP. Necessidade insatisfeita por métodos anticoncepcionais no Brasil. Rev Bras Epidemiol 2007; 10 (02) 139-148 . Doi: 10.1590/S1415-790X2007000200002
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Studart C, Homolova B, Fontes M, Laro R, Olson N. Contraceptive procurement policies, practices, and lessons learned: Brazil. Arlington: DELIVER, for the U.S. Agency for International Development; 2006
  Google Scholar
• 9 Rosenberg M, Waugh MS. Causes and consequences of oral contraceptive noncompliance. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (2 Pt 2, Suppl) 276-279 . Doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70718-0
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Rajasekar D, Bigrigg A. Pill knowledge amongst oral contraceptive users in family planning clinics in Scotland: facts, myths and fantasies. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2000; 5 (01) 85-90 . Doi: 10.1080/13625180008500377
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Mullersman JL, Peipert JF. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (02) 115.e1-115.e7 . Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.017
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D, Secura G. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (05) 1105-1113 . Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2015
  Google Scholar
• 14 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee Committee on Patient Safety and Quality Improvement. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 447: Patient safety in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (06) 1424-1427 . Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c6f965
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, Dunn S, Fisher W, Kives S. , et al. Canadian contraception consensus (Part 3 of 4): chapter 7–intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016; 38 (02) 182-222 . Doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2015.12.002
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists. Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare [Internet]. FSRH Clinical Guideline: Intrauterine Contraception (April 2015, amended September 2019) [cited 2019 Dec 10]. Available from: https://www.fsrh.org/standards-and-guidance/documents/ceuguidanceintrauterinecontraception/
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Speidel JJ, Harper CC, Shields WC. The potential of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unintended pregnancy. Contraception 2008; 78 (03) 197-200 . Doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.06.001
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Oppelt PG, Baier F, Fahlbusch C, Heusinger K, Hildebrandt T, Breuel C, Dittrich R. What do patients want to know about contraception and which method would they prefer?. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 295 (06) 1483-1491 . Doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4373-1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Isaacs JN, Creinin MD. Miscommunication between healthcare providers and patients may result in unplanned pregnancies. Contraception 2003; 68 (05) 373-376 . Doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.08.012
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Peipert JF, Madden T, Allsworth JE, Secura GM. Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (06) 1291-1297 . Doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318273eb56
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Zapata LB, Steenland MW, Brahmi D, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Effect of missed combined hormonal contraceptives on contraceptive effectiveness: a systematic review. Contraception 2013; 87 (05) 685-700 . Doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.035
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Chabbert-Buffet N, Jamin C, Lete I, Lobo P, Nappi RE, Pintiaux A, Häusler G. , et al. Missed pills: frequency, reasons, consequences and solutions. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2017; 22 (03) 165-169 . Doi: 10.1080/13625187.2017.1295437
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Birgisson NE, Zhao Q, Secura GM, Madden T, Peipert JF. Preventing unintended pregnancy: the Contraceptive CHOICE Project in review. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2015; 24 (05) 349-353 . Doi: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5191
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Ritter T, Dore A, McGeechan K. Contraceptive knowledge and attitudes among 14-24-year-olds in New South Wales, Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 2015; 39 (03) 267-269 . Doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12367
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Spies EL, Askelson NM, Gelman E, Losch M. Young women's knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to long-acting reversible contraceptives. Womens Health Issues 2010; 20 (06) 394-399 . Doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2010.07.005
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Goldhammer DL, Fraser C, Wigginton B, Harris ML, Bateson D, Loxton D. , et al. What do young Australian women want (when talking to doctors about contraception)?. BMC Fam Pract 2017; 18 (01) 35 . Doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0616-2
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Szarewski A, von Stenglin A, Rybowski S. Women's attitudes towards monthly bleeding: results of a global population-based survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2012; 17 (04) 270-283 . Doi: 10.3109/13625187.2012.684811
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Merki-Feld GS, Breitschmid N, Seifert B, Kreft M. A survey on Swiss women's preferred menstrual/withdrawal bleeding pattern over different phases of reproductive life and with use of hormonal contraception. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2014; 19 (04) 266-275 . Doi: 10.3109/13625187.2014.907398
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Buhling KJ, Klovekorn L, Daniels B, Studnitz FSG, Eulenburg C, Mueck AO. Contraceptive counselling and self-prescription of contraceptives of German gynaecologists: results of a nationwide survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2014; 19 (06) 448-456 . Doi: 10.3109/13625187.2014.945164
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Daniels K, Jones J, Abma J. Use of emergency contraception among women aged 15-44: United States, 2006-2010. NCHS Data Brief 2013; (112) 1-8
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Raymond EG, Trussell J, Polis CB. Population effect of increased access to emergency contraceptive pills: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (01) 181-188 . Doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000250904.06923.4a
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Polis CB, Schaffer K, Blanchard K, Glasier A, Harper CC, Grimes DA. Advance provision of emergency contraception for pregnancy prevention (full review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (02) CD005497 . Doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005497.pub2
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Merki-Feld GS, Caetano C, Porz TC, Bitzer J. Are there unmet needs in contraceptive counselling and choice? Findings of the European TANCO Study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2018; 23 (03) 183-193 . Doi: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1465546
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Merki-Feld GS, Gruber IML. Broad counseling for adolescents about combined hormonal contraceptive methods: the choice study. J Adolesc Health 2014; 54 (04) 404-409 . Doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.06.019
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 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 . Doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S59059
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Gemzell-Danielsson K, Cho S, Inki P, Mansour D, Reid R, Bahamondes L. Use of contraceptive methods and contraceptive recommendations among health care providers actively involved in contraceptive counseling – results of an international survey in 10 countries. Contraception 2012; 86 (06) 631-638 . Doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.002
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Egarter C, Frey Tirri B, Bitzer J, Kaminskyy V, Oddens BJ, Prilepskaya V. , et al. Women's perceptions and reasons for choosing the pill, patch, or ring in the CHOICE study: a cross-sectional survey of contraceptive method selection after counseling. BMC Womens Health 2013; 13: 9 . Doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-13-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar