Use of non-medical contraceptive methods: a survey of women in western Sweden

Abstract

Objectives: To describe women’s self-reported use of non-medical contraceptive methods (including barrier methods, fertility awareness-based methods and withdrawal), explore reasons for and satisfaction with choice of contraceptive methods and examine women’s fertility awareness.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among women consulting at primary healthcare clinics not using medical contraceptives.

Results: Most of the 648 participants (67%) reported using a mix of condom use, withdrawal and a calendar method, while 23% used only condoms. Eleven percent reported using the Billings ovulation method, diaphragm/cap or fertility monitor and found these methods highly satisfactory. A majority of the women who primarily used condoms also reported being satisfied. Most women actively chose non-medical contraception because it was perceived as without adverse effects, uncomplicated and effective. Fertility awareness was generally poor.

Conclusion: Frequent use of withdrawal and a calendar method, as well as poor fertility awareness, suggests a need for improved counselling at contraceptive clinics on fertility awareness and more effective non-medical contraceptive methods to assist women in making an informed contraceptive choice.

摘要

目的：描述女性自我报告用非医疗避孕方法（包括屏障法、日历表避孕法和体外排精）, 探讨避孕方法的选择原因和满意度, 并调查女性的生育意识。

方法：在不使用药物避孕药的基层保健诊所咨询的妇女中进行了一项横断面调查。

结果：在648名参与者中(67%), 大多数人报告使用了混合使用避孕套、体外排精和日历表避孕方法, 而23%的人只使用避孕套。11%的人报告使用了比林斯排卵法、子宫帽法或生育监测器, 他们认为这些方法非常令人满意。大多数主要使用避孕套的女性也表示满意。大多数妇女积极选择非药物避孕, 因为她们认为这些方法无副作用, 简单和有效, 且生育意识普遍较差。

结论：经常使用体外排精和日历表方法以及较差的生育意识, 表明有必要改进避孕诊所关于生育意识的咨询和提供更有效的非医疗避孕方法, 以协助妇女作出知情的避孕选择。

Keywords:

• Contraception
• natural family planning
• hormone-free
• fertility awareness-based methods
• fertility awareness
• fertile window

Acknowledgements

We thank all participating women who shared their perceptions and experiences in this survey, as well as the recruiting staff at the clinics.

Disclosure of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.