An observational study of adherence to combined oral contraceptive regimens

Abstract

Objective: To analyze adherence to an oral contraceptive (OC) regimen and correlate results to participants’ socio-demographic and behavioral characteristics.

Methods: Women were prospectively enrolled and followed for 6 months. At enrollment, subjects were given a card for recording daily pill intake; its completion was checked at 6 months when women completed a self-administered questionnaire.

Results: Out of 755 eligible subjects, 704 agreed to participate; 402 women completed 6 months of recording of use of an OC and properly filled the questionnaire. Good adherence was reported by 64% of participants; 20.9% missed one pill and 14.9% missed more than one pill. Mean number of missed pills per subject was 0.59 and mean number of pills delayed for less than 24 h was 1.18. Best adherence to a COC regimen was associated with evening time intake (p = 0.0019). No statistically significant associations of adherence with socio-demographic characteristics were found. Age was only marginally associated with having missed at least one pill.

Conclusion: In the present study, a lower number of missed pills were observed than previously reported, but the proportion of missed pills was similar. No association with specific subject characteristics that could serve as markers of increased risk of nonadherence was found.

Chinese abstract

目的: 分析一项口服避孕药 (OC) 方案的依从性及其与​​受试者的社会人口和行为特征的关系。

方法: 对入组女性前瞻性随访6个月。给予每位入组的受试者一张记录每日摄入药量的卡片;6个月后受试结束, 受试者完成自我调查问卷同时完成此卡。

结果: 755名合格受试者中, 有704人同意参与此项研究; 402名受试者完成了这6个月口服避孕药的记录, 并正确填写了问卷。64％的参与者有良好依从性; 20.9％的参与者漏服一片药, 14.9％的参与者则漏服更多。每个受试者漏服药物的平均数为0.59, 24小时内补服药片的平均数为1.18。COC方案的最佳依从性与夜间服药时间有关 (p = 0.0019) 。依从性与社会人口学特征从统计学上说没有显著相关性。勉强来说, 年龄与漏服药物数目相关。

结论: 在本研究中, 观察到的漏服药物数目比既往报道要少, 但漏服药物的比例相似。增加漏服风险的标记物暂无特殊主体特征。

Keywords:

• Adherence
• contraception
• missed pills
• oral contraceptives
• patient compliance

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and the writing of the paper. The authors received no funding for this study.