Research Article
No access
Published Online: 11 November 2011

Depot-Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Contraception Use Among Salvadoran Women: An In-Depth Analysis of Attitudes and Experiences

Publication: Journal of Women's Health
Volume 20, Issue Number 11

Abstract

Objective: To survey a cross-section of reproductive-age Salvadoran women in order to assess the factors that influence their decision to use depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), an injectable form of contraception.
Methods: Reproductive-age women at three rural Salvadoran health clinics were asked to participate in a study to assess their current and past experiences using DMPA contraception. Verbal informed consent was obtained, and research coordinators administered a 23-question survey.
Results: Surveys were completed in 425 women with an average age of 27.36 years. Average duration of DMPA contraception use was 2.89 years. The majority (84%) of past and present users were very satisfied with DMPA contraception, most commonly because they did not have to remember to use it daily (44.9%). The side effects of DMPA appear to be a significant indicator of whether women heard about and wanted to use other forms of long-term reversible contraception, such as an intrauterine device (IUD) or implant.
Conclusions: The main reason Salvadoran women chose to use DMPA is because they do not have to think about it on a daily basis. However, many women do not like the side effects and may be open to explore using other long-term reversible methods of contraception, such as IUDs or implants. It is possible that with increased access to educational information about IUD use, safety, and effectiveness, more women would use this form of long-term contraception as opposed to sterilization.

Get full access to this article

View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.

References

1.
Haider SDarney PD. DMPA contraceptionClin Obstet Gynecol200750898-906. 1. Haider S, Darney PD. DMPA contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2007;50:898–906.
2.
Westhoff C. Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera): A highly effective contraceptive option with proven long-term safetyContraception20036875-87. 2. Westhoff C. Depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate injection (Depo-Provera): A highly effective contraceptive option with proven long-term safety. Contraception 2003;68:75–87.
3.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Hormonal contraception: Recent advances and controversiesFertil Steril200890S103-S113. 3. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Hormonal contraception: Recent advances and controversies. Fertil Steril 2008;90:S103–S113.
4.
Hatcher RATrussell JNelson ALCates WStewart FHKowal DContraceptive Technology19th rev.New YorkArden Media2007. 4. Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Nelson AL, Cates W, Stewart FH, Kowal D. Contraceptive Technology, 19th rev. ed. New York: Arden Media, 2007.
5.
Spencer ALBonnema RMcNamara MC. Helping women choose appropriate hormonal contraception: Update on risks, benefits, and indicationsAm J Med2009122497-506. 5. Spencer AL, Bonnema R, McNamara MC. Helping women choose appropriate hormonal contraception: Update on risks, benefits, and indications. Am J Med 2009;122:497–506.
6.
El Salvador, R.o.Encuesta Nacional de Salud Familiar (FESAL)2008–2009. 6. El Salvador, R.o., Encuesta Nacional de Salud Familiar (FESAL), 2008–2009.
7.
Hassan EOel-Nahal Nel-Hussinie M. Once-a-month DMPA contraceptives, Cyclofem and Mesigyna, in Egypt. Efficacy, causes of discontinuation, and side effectsContraception19996087-92. 7. Hassan EO, el-Nahal N, el-Hussinie M. Once-a-month DMPA contraceptives, Cyclofem and Mesigyna, in Egypt. Efficacy, causes of discontinuation, and side effects. Contraception 1999;60:87–92.
8.
Koetsawang S. Once-a-month DMPA contraceptives: Efficacy and reasons for discontinuationContraception199449387-398. 8. Koetsawang S. Once-a-month DMPA contraceptives: Efficacy and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception 1994;49:387–398.
9.
Thonneau PFAlmont TE. Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devicesAm J Obstet Gynecol2008198248-253. 9. Thonneau PF, Almont TE. Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:248–253.
10.
Farr GAmatya R. Contraceptive efficacy of the Copper T380A and the Multiload Cu250 IUD in three developing countriesAdv Contraception199410137-149. 10. Farr G, Amatya R. Contraceptive efficacy of the Copper T380A and the Multiload Cu250 IUD in three developing countries. Adv Contraception 1994;10:137–149.
11.
McDonald-Mosley RPhilips KDitzian LCremer M. Acceptability of the intrauterine device among women in El SalvadorInt J Gynaecol Obstet2010108155-157. 11. McDonald-Mosley R, Philips K, Ditzian L, Cremer M. Acceptability of the intrauterine device among women in El Salvador. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2010;108:155–157.
12.
Espey EOgburn TEspey DEtsitty V. IUD-related knowledge, attitudes and practices among Navajo Area Indian Health Service providersPerspect Sex Reprod Health200335169-173. 12. Espey E, Ogburn T, Espey D, Etsitty V. IUD-related knowledge, attitudes and practices among Navajo Area Indian Health Service providers. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2003;35:169–173.
13.
Katz KRJohnson LMJanowitz BCarranza JM. Reasons for the low level of IUD use in El SalvadorIntal Fam Plann Perspect20022826-31. 13. Katz KR, Johnson LM, Janowitz B, Carranza JM. Reasons for the low level of IUD use in El Salvador. Intal Fam Plann Perspect 2002;28:26–31.
14.
van Lunsen RHWArnold HTvan Maris MGM. Choices and changes in contraceptive behaviour; The role of information sourcePatient Educ Counsel199423197-202. 14. van Lunsen RHW, Arnold HT, van Maris MGM. Choices and changes in contraceptive behaviour; The role of information source. Patient Educ Counsel 1994;23:197–202.
15.
Helen CAStokes-Lampard HBeauvan JWilson S. What is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: A qualitative studyJ Fam Plann Reprod Health Care20063289-94. 15. Helen CA, Stokes-Lampard H, Beauvan J, Wilson S. What is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: A qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006;32:89–94.
16.
Davie JEWalling MRAsthon Mansour DJ et al. Impact of patient counseling on acceptance of the levonogestrel implant contraceptive in the United KingdomClin Ther199618150-159. 16. Davie JE, Walling MR, Asthon Mansour DJ, et al. Impact of patient counseling on acceptance of the levonogestrel implant contraceptive in the United Kingdom. Clin Ther 1996;18:150–159.
17.
Baldaszti EWimmer-Puchinger BLöscheke K. Acceptability of the long-term contraceptive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena®): A 3-year follow-up studyContraception20036787-91. 17. Baldaszti E, Wimmer-Puchinger B, Löscheke K. Acceptability of the long-term contraceptive levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena®): A 3-year follow-up study. Contraception 2003;67:87–91.
18.
Kaunitz AM. Menstruation: Choosing whether and whenContraception200062277-284. 18. Kaunitz AM. Menstruation: Choosing whether and when. Contraception 2000;62:277–284.
19.
Parker RMWilliams MVWBarker DWNurss JR. Literacy and contraception: Exploring the linkObstet Gynecol19968872S-77S. 19. Parker RM, Williams MVW, Barker DW, Nurss JR. Literacy and contraception: Exploring the link. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88:72S–77S.

Information & Authors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of Women's Health
Journal of Women's Health
Volume 20Issue Number 11November 2011
Pages: 1751 - 1756
PubMed: 21823919

History

Published online: 11 November 2011
Published in print: November 2011
Published ahead of print: 8 August 2011

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Topics

Authors

Affiliations

Miriam Cremer
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Basic Health International, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Lauren Ditzian
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Basic Health International, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Ayana April
Basic Health International, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York.
Ethel Peralta
Basic Health International, San Salvador, El Salvador.
Dalia Klausner
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Rebecca Podolsky
Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Elizabeth Dierking
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York.

Notes

Address correspondence to:Miriam Cremer, M.D., M.P.H.The Mount Sinai Medical CenterOne Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 1170New York, NY 10029-6574E-mail: [email protected]

Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Citations

Export citation

Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.

View Options

Get Access

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.

Society Access

If you are a member of a society that has access to this content please log in via your society website and then return to this publication.

Restore your content access

Enter your email address to restore your content access:

Note: This functionality works only for purchases done as a guest. If you already have an account, log in to access the content to which you are entitled.

View options

PDF/EPUB

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Copy the content Link

Share on social media

Back to Top