Contraceptive priorities among women seeking family planning services in Finland in 2017-2019

Show full item record



Gyllenberg , F , Tekay , A , Saloranta , T , Korjamo , R & Heikinheimo , O 2021 , ' Contraceptive priorities among women seeking family planning services in Finland in 2017-2019 ' , Contraception , vol. 104 , no. 4 , pp. 394-400 .

Title: Contraceptive priorities among women seeking family planning services in Finland in 2017-2019
Author: Gyllenberg, Frida; Tekay, Aydin; Saloranta, Tuire; Korjamo, Riina; Heikinheimo, Oskari
Contributor organization: HUS Gynecology and Obstetrics
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care
Date: 2021-10
Language: eng
Number of pages: 7
Belongs to series: Contraception
ISSN: 0010-7824
Abstract: Objective: To assess how women's reproductive history, contraceptive experience and need of abortion care are associated with priorities for contraception. Study Design: In this cross-sectional survey study, we gathered information on women's history of births and abortions, previous use and satisfaction with contraceptive methods, and features of contraceptive methods they value most. Women were recruited at public family planning and outpatient abortion clinics in the capital region of Helsinki, Finland. Results: Of the 1006 women responding, 502 were recruited during visits for abortion care and 504 for contraceptive counseling. Women seeking abortion care more often had a history of abortion than women seeking contraceptive counseling (44% vs 11%), presented with a higher mean number of different contraceptive methods used (69% vs 55% with more than 2 previous methods), and were less often satisfied with the methods used (36% vs 60% satisfied with 2 out of 3 methods), p < 0.001 for all. In addition, women seeking abortion care had lower odds of prioritizing effectiveness (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5), and higher odds of prioritizing lower hormonal levels or non-hormonal alternatives (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.2). There was no difference between the groups regarding priorities of lesser pelvic pain (aOR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.1), regular period (aOR 01.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.9), or the method being easy to use (aOR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.8). Conclusions: There is a contrast between guidelines emphasizing effectiveness in postabortion contraception, and many women's contraceptive priorities. Implication statement: Clinicians providing contraceptive counseling must be mindful of each individual's personal contraceptive priorities. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Subject: Contraception
Service provision
3123 Gynaecology and paediatrics
Peer reviewed: Yes
Rights: cc_by
Usage restriction: openAccess
Self-archived version: publishedVersion

Files in this item

Total number of downloads: Loading...

Files Size Format View
PIIS0010782421001864.pdf 928.1Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show full item record