Profile of long-acting reversible contraception users in Europe

References

• Fuchs N, Prinz H, Koch U. Attitudes to current oral contraceptive use and future developments: The women's perspective. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 1996; 1: 275–284
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oddens B J. Women's satisfaction with birth control: A population survey of physical and psychological effects of oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices, condoms, natural family planning, and sterilization among 1466 women. Contraception 1999; 59: 277–286
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skouby S O. Contraceptive use and behavior in the 21st century: A comprehensive study across five European countries. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2004; 9: 57–68
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spinelli A, Talamanca I F, Lauria L. Patterns of contraceptive use in 5 European countries. European Study Group on Infertility and Subfecundity. Am J Public Health 2000; 90: 1403–1408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benagiano G, Shedlin M G. Cultural factors in oral contraceptive compliance. Adv Contracept 1992; 8(Suppl. 1)47–56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cheung E, Free C. Factors influencing young women's decision making regarding hormonal contraceptives: A qualitative study. Contraception 2005; 71: 426–431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lete I, Doval J L, Perez-Campos E, et al. Factors affecting women's selection of a combined hormonal contraceptive method: The TEAM-06 Spanish cross-sectional study. Contraception 2007; 76: 77–83
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott A, Glasier A. Evidence based contraceptive choices. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20: 665–680
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lauglo M, Mogedal S. Council of Europe, StrasbourgFrance 1999, Reproductive choice. Available at: http://www.coe.int/T/E/Human_Rights/Equality/PDF_EG(1999)4_E.pdf (Accessed 9 December 2008)
   Google Scholar
• Cibula D. Women's contraceptive practices and sexual behaviour in Europe. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008; 13: 362–375
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serbanescu F, Goldberg H, Morris L. Reproductive health in the transition countries of Europe (Chapter 10). United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, GenevaSwitzerland 12–14 January, 2004
   Google Scholar
• Oddens B J. Determinants of contraceptive use: From birth control to fertility awareness. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1997; 71: 1–2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddens B J, Lehert P. Determinants of contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in Great Britain and Germany. I: Demographic factors. J Biosoc Sci 1997; 29: 415–435
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oddens B J. Determinants of contraceptive use among women of reproductive age in Great Britain and Germany. II: Psychological factors. J Biosoc Sci 1997; 29: 437–470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner M J, Dalebout S, Condon S, et al. Understanding risk: A randomized controlled trial of communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 709–717
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell M. Consumer behaviour and contraceptive decisions: Resolving a decades-long puzzle. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32: 241–244
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: A randomized comparative trial. Contraception 1994; 49: 56–72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luukkainen T, Allonen H, Haukkamaa M, et al. Five years’ experience with levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs. Contraception 1986; 33: 139–148
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Backman T, Huhtala S, Blom T, et al. Length of use and symptoms associated with premature removal of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system: A nation-wide study of 17,360 users. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2000; 107: 335–339
   Google Scholar
• Sangi-Haghpeykar H, Poindexter A N, 3rd, Bateman L, Ditmore J R. Experiences of injectable contraceptive users in an urban setting. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88: 227–233
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polaneczky M, Liblanc M. Long-term depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera) use in inner-city adolescents. J Adolesc Health 1998; 23: 81–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zibners A, Cromer B A, Hayes J. Comparison of continuation rates for hormonal contraception among adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 1999; 12: 90–94
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Keder L M, Rulin M C, Gruss J. Compliance with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate: A randomized, controlled trial of intensive reminders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 583–585
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Power J, French R, Cowan F. Subdermal implantable contraceptives versus other forms of reversible contraceptives or other implants as effective methods of preventing pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; CD001326
   Google Scholar
• Lei Z W, Wu S C, Garceau R J, et al. Effect of pretreatment counseling on discontinuation rates in Chinese women given depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. Contraception 1996; 53: 357–361
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Affandi B, Korver T, Geurts T B, Coelingh Bennink H J. A pilot efficacy study with a single-rod contraceptive implant (Implanon) in 200 Indonesian women treated for <or = 4 years.[retraction in Rekers H, Affandi B. Contraception. 2004;Nov;70:433; PMID: 15504385]. Contraception 1999; 59: 167–174
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson J K, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of menorrhagia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 690–694
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coutinho E M, Spinola P, Barbosa I, et al. Multicenter, double-blind, comparative clinical study on the efficacy and acceptability of a monthly injectable contraceptive combination of 150 mg dihydroxyprogesterone acetophenide and 10 mg estradiol enanthate compared to a monthly injectable contraceptive combination of 90 mg dihydroxyprogesterone acetophenide and 6 mg estradiol enanthate. Contraception 1997; 55: 175–181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coutinho E M, Spinola P, Tomaz G, et al. Efficacy, acceptability, and clinical effects of a low-dose injectable contraceptive combination of dihydroxyprogesterone acetophenide and estradiol enanthate. Contraception 2000; 61: 277–280
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuong D T, My Huong N T. Comparative phase III clinical trial of two injectable contraceptive preparations, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate and Cyclofem, in Vietnamese women. Contraception 1996; 54: 169–179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng S R, Zheng H M, Qian S Z, et al. A randomized multicenter study comparing the efficacy and bleeding pattern of a single-rod (Implanon) and a six-capsule (Norplant) hormonal contraceptive implant. Contraception 1999; 60: 1–8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson C G, Luukkainen T, Diaz J, Allonen H. Clinical performance of a new levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. A randomized comparison with a Nova-T-copper device. Contraception 1982; 25: 345–356
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Cleland K, Trussell J. Contraceptive discontinuation attributed to method dissatisfaction in the United States. Contraception 2007; 76: 267–272
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inki P. Long-term use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception 2007; 75: S161–S166
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinter B. Continuation and compliance of contraceptive use. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2002; 7: 178–183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavranezouli I, Wilkinson C. Long-acting reversible contraceptives: Not only effective, but also a cost-effective option for the National Health Service. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006; 32: 3–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varney S J, Guest J F. Relative cost effectiveness of Depo-Provera, Implanon, and Mirena in reversible long-term hormonal contraception in the UK. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22: 1141–1151
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar