Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use

Abbey Berenson, C. M. Wiemann, V. I. Rickerr, S. L. McCombs

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate both the continuation and pregnancy rates and the side effects experienced during the first year of use by adolescents who selected Norplant implants as compared with those who chose oral contraceptives for contraception. Furthermore, side effects experienced at 6 versus 12 months among Norplant implant users were compared to determine whether they diminished with continued use of this method. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study of 56 adolescents ≤18 years old who selected implants as compared with 56 age-matched controls who chose oral contraceptive pills during the same time period. RESULTS: Only 34% of patients prescribed oral contraceptives as compared with 91% of Norplant implant patients were still using their chosen method 1 year later. As a result 25% of oral contraceptive users became pregnant within 12 months as compared with none who selected Norplant implants. Side effects were reported by >80% of patients in both groups, with menstrual irregularities reported more often by Norplant implant users than by oral contraceptive users (73% vs 5%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, Norplant implant users gained more weight than oral contraceptive users (8.7 vs 4.2 pounds) and were twice as likely to have an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Finally, little diminution in side effects was observed during the second 6 months of Norplant implant use. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that Norplant implants provide better protection against unintended pregnancy in an adolescent population but may be associated with more side effects. Clinicians should be aware of these findings so they can adequately counsel young patients about these two methods of contraception.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)586-592
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume176
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1997

Fingerprint

Levonorgestrel
Oral Contraceptives
Contraceptive Agents
Contraception
Papanicolaou Test
Pregnancy in Adolescence
Pregnancy Rate
Case-Control Studies
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • adolescence
  • birth control
  • Contraception
  • levonorgestrel implants
  • Norplant implants

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use. / Berenson, Abbey; Wiemann, C. M.; Rickerr, V. I.; McCombs, S. L.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 176, No. 3, 1997, p. 586-592.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{dcb03c02cbf6443dae710fad454379e9,
title = "Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate both the continuation and pregnancy rates and the side effects experienced during the first year of use by adolescents who selected Norplant implants as compared with those who chose oral contraceptives for contraception. Furthermore, side effects experienced at 6 versus 12 months among Norplant implant users were compared to determine whether they diminished with continued use of this method. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study of 56 adolescents ≤18 years old who selected implants as compared with 56 age-matched controls who chose oral contraceptive pills during the same time period. RESULTS: Only 34{\%} of patients prescribed oral contraceptives as compared with 91{\%} of Norplant implant patients were still using their chosen method 1 year later. As a result 25{\%} of oral contraceptive users became pregnant within 12 months as compared with none who selected Norplant implants. Side effects were reported by >80{\%} of patients in both groups, with menstrual irregularities reported more often by Norplant implant users than by oral contraceptive users (73{\%} vs 5{\%}, p = 0.01). Furthermore, Norplant implant users gained more weight than oral contraceptive users (8.7 vs 4.2 pounds) and were twice as likely to have an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Finally, little diminution in side effects was observed during the second 6 months of Norplant implant use. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that Norplant implants provide better protection against unintended pregnancy in an adolescent population but may be associated with more side effects. Clinicians should be aware of these findings so they can adequately counsel young patients about these two methods of contraception.",
keywords = "adolescence, birth control, Contraception, levonorgestrel implants, Norplant implants",
author = "Abbey Berenson and Wiemann, {C. M.} and Rickerr, {V. I.} and McCombs, {S. L.}",
year = "1997",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70552-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "176",
pages = "586--592",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Contraceptive outcomes among adolescents prescribed Norplant implants versus oral contraceptives after one year of use

AU - Berenson, Abbey

AU - Wiemann, C. M.

AU - Rickerr, V. I.

AU - McCombs, S. L.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate both the continuation and pregnancy rates and the side effects experienced during the first year of use by adolescents who selected Norplant implants as compared with those who chose oral contraceptives for contraception. Furthermore, side effects experienced at 6 versus 12 months among Norplant implant users were compared to determine whether they diminished with continued use of this method. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study of 56 adolescents ≤18 years old who selected implants as compared with 56 age-matched controls who chose oral contraceptive pills during the same time period. RESULTS: Only 34% of patients prescribed oral contraceptives as compared with 91% of Norplant implant patients were still using their chosen method 1 year later. As a result 25% of oral contraceptive users became pregnant within 12 months as compared with none who selected Norplant implants. Side effects were reported by >80% of patients in both groups, with menstrual irregularities reported more often by Norplant implant users than by oral contraceptive users (73% vs 5%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, Norplant implant users gained more weight than oral contraceptive users (8.7 vs 4.2 pounds) and were twice as likely to have an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Finally, little diminution in side effects was observed during the second 6 months of Norplant implant use. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that Norplant implants provide better protection against unintended pregnancy in an adolescent population but may be associated with more side effects. Clinicians should be aware of these findings so they can adequately counsel young patients about these two methods of contraception.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate both the continuation and pregnancy rates and the side effects experienced during the first year of use by adolescents who selected Norplant implants as compared with those who chose oral contraceptives for contraception. Furthermore, side effects experienced at 6 versus 12 months among Norplant implant users were compared to determine whether they diminished with continued use of this method. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a case-control study of 56 adolescents ≤18 years old who selected implants as compared with 56 age-matched controls who chose oral contraceptive pills during the same time period. RESULTS: Only 34% of patients prescribed oral contraceptives as compared with 91% of Norplant implant patients were still using their chosen method 1 year later. As a result 25% of oral contraceptive users became pregnant within 12 months as compared with none who selected Norplant implants. Side effects were reported by >80% of patients in both groups, with menstrual irregularities reported more often by Norplant implant users than by oral contraceptive users (73% vs 5%, p = 0.01). Furthermore, Norplant implant users gained more weight than oral contraceptive users (8.7 vs 4.2 pounds) and were twice as likely to have an abnormal Papanicolaou smear. Finally, little diminution in side effects was observed during the second 6 months of Norplant implant use. CONCLUSIONS: These data confirm that Norplant implants provide better protection against unintended pregnancy in an adolescent population but may be associated with more side effects. Clinicians should be aware of these findings so they can adequately counsel young patients about these two methods of contraception.

KW - adolescence

KW - birth control

KW - Contraception

KW - levonorgestrel implants

KW - Norplant implants

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030900368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030900368&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70552-0

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70552-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 9077611

AN - SCOPUS:0030900368

VL - 176

SP - 586

EP - 592

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 3

ER -