Pooled incidence of continuation and pregnancy rates of four contraceptive methods in young women: a meta-analysis

References

• Institute G, Sully EA, Biddlecom A, et al. Adding it up: investing in sexual and reproductive health 2019 [Internet]. Guttmacher Institute; 2020; [cited 2021 Apr 21]. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/adding-it-up-investing-in-sexual-reproductive-health-2019.
   Google Scholar
• Darroch JE, Woog V, Bankole A, et al. Adding it up: costs and benefits of meeting the contraceptive needs of adolescents. Guttmacher Institute [Internet]; [cited 2021 Apr 21]. 2016. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/adding-it-meeting-contraceptive-needs-of-adolescents.
   Google Scholar
• Mack N, Crawford TJ, Guise J-M, et al. Strategies to improve adherence and continuation of shorter-term hormonal methods of contraception. Cochrane Fertility Regulation Group, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2019; [cited 2020 Mar 19]. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004317.pub5.
   Google Scholar
• Sherin M, Waters J. Long-acting reversible contraceptives for adolescent females: a review of current best practices. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2019;31(5):675–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Contraceptive Technology [Internet]. 21st ed. 2021; [cited 2021 Apr 22]. Available from: http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Contraceptive-Failure-Rates.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bradley SEK, Polis CB, Bankole A, et al. Global contraceptive failure rates: who is most at risk? Stud Fam Plann. 2019;50(1):3–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedgh G, Singh S, Shah IH, et al. Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):625–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones AE, Kaul S, Harding J, et al. Follow-up care and 6-Month continuation rates for long-acting reversible contraceptives in adolescents and young adults: a retrospective chart review. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2020;33(1):39–44.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenstock JR, Peipert JF, Madden T, et al. Continuation of reversible contraception in teenagers and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1298–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks D, Canadian Paediatric S. Adolescent health committee: age limits and adolescents. Paediatr Child Health. 2003;8(9):577–577.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stages of Adolescent Development [Internet]. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2021; [cited 2021 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/adolescent-sexual-health/Pages/Stages-of-Adolescent-Development.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Committee Opinion No 699: adolescent pregnancy, contraception, and sexual activity. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:e142–e149.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Contraceptive services for under 25s. 2014. 70.
   Google Scholar
• Canada PHA of. Stages of Childhood: Adolescence (13-19) [Internet]. 2010; [cited 2021 Jun 28]. Available from: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/childhood-adolescence/stages-childhood/adolescence-13-19.html.
   Google Scholar
• Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. [Internet]. The Ottawa Hospital: Research Institute; [cited 2019 Feb 18]. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration [Internet]. 2011; [cited 2021 Jun 28]. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
   Google Scholar
• Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in Meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2016;7(1):55–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;22(3):276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming G, Finch S. Inference by eye: confidence intervals and how to read pictures of data. Am Psychol. 2005;60(2):170–180.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tan SH, Tan SB. The correct interpretation of confidence intervals. Proc Singapore Healthc. 2010;19(3):276–278.
   Google Scholar
• Thurman AR, Hammond N, Brown HE, et al. Preventing repeat teen pregnancy: postpartum depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pills, or the patch? J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007;20(2):61–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beksinska ME, Smit JA, Kleinschmidt I, et al. Prospective study of weight change in new adolescent users of DMPA, NET-EN, COCs, nonusers and discontinuers of hormonal contraception. Contraception. 2010;81(1):30–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gai L, Jia Y, Zhang M, et al. Effect of two kinds of different combined oral contraceptives use on bone mineral density in adolescent women. Contraception. 2012;86(4):332–336.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordis L, Finkelstein R, Fassett JD, et al. Evaluation of a program for preventing adolescent pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1970;282(19):1078–1081.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diserens C, Quach A, Mathevet P, et al. Adolescents’ contraception continuation in Switzerland: a prospective observational study. Swiss Med Wkly. 2017:147(3940). http://doi.emh.ch/smw.2017.14504.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fisher M, Marks A, Trieller K. Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the diaphragm and birth control pill during the first year of use among suburban adolescents. J Adolesc Health Care. 1987;8(5):393–399.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Molina RC, Sandoval JZ, Montero AV, et al. Comparative performance of a combined injectable contraceptive (50 mg norethisterone enanthate plus 5mg estradiol valerate) and a combined oral contraceptive (0.15 mg levonorgestrel plus 0.03 mg ethinyl estradiol) in adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2009;22(1):25–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zibners A, Cromer BA, Hayes J. Comparison of continuation rates for hormonal contraception among adolescents. J Pediatric Adoles Gynecol. 1999;12(2):90–94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berenson AB, Wiemann CM, Rickerr VI, et al. Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;176(3):586–592.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenthal PD, Wilson LE, Remsburg RE, et al. Contraceptive outcomes among post-partum and post-abortal adolescents. Contraception. 1994;50(5):451–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Dell CM, Forke CM, Polaneczky MM, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate or oral contraception in postpartum adolescents. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:609–614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romano ME, Braun-Courville DK. Assessing weight status in adolescent and young adult users of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2019;32(4):409–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz J, Neto AMP, Bahamondes L, et al. Performance of the copper T 200 in parous adolescents: are copper IUDs suitable for these women? Contraception. 1993;48(1):23–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsson B, Hagström B, Viberg L, et al. Long-term clinical experience with the Cu-7-IUD. Evaluation of a prospective study. Contraception. 1981;23(4):387–397.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cullins VE, Remsburg RE, Blumenthal PD, et al. Comparison of adolescent and adult experiences with norplant levonorgestrel contraceptive implants. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83(6):1026–1032.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson H, Ashton J, Harrison-Woolrych M. A nationwide cohort study of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device in New Zealand adolescents. Contraception. 2009;79(6):433–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cardamakis E, Georgopoulos A, Fotopoulos A, et al. Clinical experience with norplant® subdermal implant system as long-term contraception during adolescence. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002;7(1):36–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Buhling KJ, Dermout SM, et al. A phase III, single-arm study of LNG-IUS 8, a low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system (total content 13.5mg) in postmenarcheal adolescents. Contraception. 2016;93(6):507–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulig JW, Rauh JL, Burket RL, et al. Experience with the copper 7 intrauterine device in an adolescent population. J Pediatr. 1980;96(4):746–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenson AB, Tan A, Hirth JM. Complications and continuation rates associated with 2 types of long-acting contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):761.e1–761.e8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patchen L, Berggren EK. Use of the copper T380A intrauterine device by adolescent mothers: continuation and method failure. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011;24(2):71–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz BI, Alexander M, Breech LL. Levonorgestrel intrauterine device use for medical indications in nulliparous adolescents and young adults. J Adolescent Health. 2020;2020:S1054139X20302974.
   Google Scholar
• Howard DL, Wayman R, Strickland JL. Satisfaction with and intention to continue depo-provera versus the mirena IUD among post-partum adolescents through 12 months of Follow-Up. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2013;26(6):358–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behringer T, Reeves MF, Rossiter B, et al. Duration of use of a levonorgestrel IUS amongst nulliparous and adolescent women. Contraception. 2011;84(5):e5–e10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abraham M, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Young age, nulliparity, and continuation of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(4):823–829.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berenson AB, Tan A, Hirth JM, et al. Complications and continuation of intrauterine device use among commercially insured teenagers. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(5):951–958.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saloranta TH, Gyllenberg FK, But A, et al. Free-of-charge long-acting reversible contraception: two-year discontinuation, its risk factors, and reasons. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;223(6):886.e1–886.e17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Savasi I, Jayasinghe K, Moore P, et al. Complication rates associated with levonorgestrel intrauterine system use in adolescents with developmental disabilities. J Pediatric Adolesc Gynecol. 2014;27(1):25–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lara-Torre E, Spotswood L, Correia N, et al. Intrauterine contraception in adolescents and young women: a descriptive study of use, side effects, and compliance. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011;24(1):39–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romano MJ, Toye P, Patchen L. Continuation of long-acting reversible contraceptives among medicaid patients. Contraception. 2018;98:125–129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guazzelli CAF, de Queiroz FT, Barbieri M, et al. Etonogestrel implant in adolescents: evaluation of clinical aspects. Contraception. 2011;83(4):336–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obijuru L, Bumpus S, Auinger P, et al. Etonogestrel implants in adolescents: experience, satisfaction, and continuation. J Adolesc Health. 2016;58(3):284–289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis LN, Doherty DA, Hickey M, et al. Implanon as a contraceptive choice for teenage mothers: a comparison of contraceptive choices, acceptability and repeat pregnancy. Contraception. 2010;81(5):421–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leal-Fuentes I, Molina T, Montero A, et al. Efectos secundarios en adolescentes chilenas usuarias de implante anticonceptivo subdérmico de etonogestrel. Matronas Prof. 2016;17:137–142.
   Google Scholar
• Assavapokee N, Wattanayingcharoenchai R, Aimjirakul K. Three-year continuation rate of etonogestrel subdermal implant and associated factors. J Med Assoc Thai. 2019;102:657–662.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen R, Sheeder J, Arango N, et al. Twelve-month contraceptive continuation and repeat pregnancy among young mothers choosing postdelivery contraceptive implants or postplacental intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2016;93(2):178–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlan E, Mizraji K, Bonny AE. Twelve-month discontinuation of etonogestrel implant in an outpatient pediatric setting. Contraception. 2016;94(1):81–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krashin J, Tang JH, Mody S, et al. Hormonal and intrauterine methods for contraception for women aged 25 years and younger. Cochrane Fertility Regulation Group, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2015; [cited 2020 Mar 26]; Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD009805.pub3.
   Google Scholar
• Diedrich JT, Klein DA, Peipert JF. Long-acting reversible contraception in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):364.e1–364.e12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deans EI, Grimes DA. Intrauterine devices for adolescents: a systematic review. Contraception. 2009;79(6):418–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usinger KM, Gola SB, Weis M, et al. Intrauterine contraception continuation in adolescents and young women: a systematic review. J Pediatric Adolesc Gynecol. 2016;29(6):659–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Aiken ARA, Micks E, et al. Efficacy, safety, and personal considerations. 21st ed. New York: Ayer Company Publishers, Inc; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Penman-Aguilar A, Carter M, Snead MC, et al. Socioeconomic disadvantage as a social determinant of teen childbearing in the U.S. Public Health Rep. 2013;128(Suppl 1):5–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Romero L, Pazol K, Warner L, et al. Reduced disparities in birth rates among teens aged 15-19 Years – United States, 2006-2007 and 2013-2014. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016;65(16):409–414.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner JH. Long-acting reversible contraceptives: addressing adolescents’ barriers to use. Nurse Pract. 2019;44(5):23–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in Meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–605.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sawyer SM, Azzopardi PS, Wickremarathne D, et al. The age of adolescence: the lancet child & adolescent health. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2018;2(3):223–228.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hatcher RA. Contraceptive technology. New York: Ardent Media; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Espey E, Ogburn T. Long-acting reversible contraceptives: intrauterine devices and the contraceptive implant. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(3):705–719.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fontenot HB, Fantasia HC. Long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents. Nursing for women’s. Nurs Womens Health. 2015;19(3):253–259.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lotke PS. Increasing use of Long-Acting reversible contraception to decrease unplanned pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2015;42(4):557–567.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar