Abstract
Objective: The combined oral contraceptive pill is the most preferred contraceptive method worldwide. Despite high life-time prevalence of infertility of 16–26%, scarce data about concerns of future fertility among COC users are available. We aimed to study whether COC usage induces concerns about fertility.
Methods: Online questionnaire-based survey included 1283 current COC users and 1006 past users. The questionnaire covered knowledge and concerns of various aspects of fertility with respect to COC usage.
Results: Significantly, more current users (66%) than past users (52%) had considered whether or not COC usage could affect future fertility (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.3–1.9). Nearly 50% of both groups believed COC usage could impair conception rates after discontinuation. Furthermore, 28% current vs. 19% past users believed COC could diminish the ovarian reserve more permanently. Conversely, 14% current and 11% past users believed that lack of ovulation could ‘spare’ the eggs (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.7–1.3). Significantly fewer current users (22%) vs. past users (35%) had heard, primarily by female friends, that a short break of 1–2 months during long-term COC usage was healthy, (OR 0.72, 95%CI = 0.56–0.92).
Conclusions: Health care professionals prescribing hormonal contraception should be aware of misapprehensions and concerns of fertility among users of COC.
摘要
目的:复方口服避孕药是世界上最优选的避孕方法。尽管女性一生中不孕症患病率高达16%至26%, 但仍缺乏关于COC使用者对未来生育能力担忧的数据。本文旨在研究使用COC是否会引起人们对生育的担忧。方法:基于在线问卷调查, 包括1283位当前COC使用者和1006位曾用者。该调查表涵盖了关于生育能力与COC使用有关的各个方面的知识和热点。结果:值得一提的是, 考虑使用COC是否会影响未来的生育力的女性(OR = 1.6, 95%CI 1.3-1.9), 当前使用者(66%)比曾用者(52%)多。两组中近50%的女性认为停用COC后可能会影响受孕率。此外, 有28%的现用者和19%的曾用者认为, COC可以更永久地减少卵巢储备。相反, 有14%的现用者和11%的曾用者认为不排卵会“储备”卵(OR = 0.9, 95%CI 0.7-1.3)。认为长期使用COC短暂停药1至2个月是健康的COC现用者(22%)明显少于曾用者(35%), 该信息主要来自于女性朋友, (OR =0.72, 95%CI = 0.56-0.92)。结论:开具激素避孕药处方的医疗保健专业人员应意识到使用COC女性对COC的误解和对使用COC影响生育能力的担忧。
Acknowledgements
The authors thank sociologist Caecilie Rahbek Schou for her valuable work during the preparation of the questionnaire.
Disclosure statement
None of the authors had any conflict of interests.