Contraceptive Technologies: Looking Ahead to New Approaches to Increase Options for Family Planning

Contraceptive risk events among family planning specialists: a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

Proponents of abortion restriction cite advancements in contraceptive technology as a reason against the need for abortion care today, most recently through oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. However, consistent and correct use of contraception requires reproductive health literacy. Our objectives were to quantify contraceptive risk events and assess contraceptive history and preferences among a population well-equipped to evade contraceptive risks, family planning specialists following initiation of their medical training. "Risk events" are defined as reported episodes of contraceptive failure, emergency contraception use and/or unprotected or underprotected intercourse.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study among current members of a professional organization of family planning specialists. Inclusion criteria included: status as a current or retired clinician, consensual penile-vaginal intercourse and personal or partner capacity to become pregnant since the start of medical training. Descriptive statistics were performed. This study was IRB exempt.

RESULTS

Among 229 respondents, 157 (69%) reported experiencing a contraceptive risk event since training. Twenty-nine (13%) respondents reported an occurrence within the last year. By category, 47% (108/229; 3 reported unknown) reported under- or unprotected intercourse, 35% (81/229) reported emergency contraception use, and 52% of participants (117/227; 2 unknown) reported known or suspected contraceptive failure. The mean number of contraceptive methods used was 3.7 (SD 1.7) out of the 13 methods listed. Almost all (97%) participants reported at least one method was not an acceptable option, with a mean of 5.6 (SD 2.7) of the 13 listed methods.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of family planning specialists have experienced contraceptive risk events during times of active pregnancy prevention since their medical training. Contraceptive method change is common and most respondents were limited in the number of methods that were personally acceptable to them. Dialogue idealizing the role of contraception in minimizing or eliminating abortion need is simplistic and inaccurately represents the lived realities of pregnancy-capable individuals and their partners, including among those with exceptional contraceptive literacy and access.

Contraceptive Risk Events among Family Planning Specialists: a Cross Sectional Study

Background

Proponents of abortion restriction cite advancements in contraceptive technology as a reason against the need for abortion care today, most recently through oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. However, consistent and correct use of contraception requires reproductive health literacy. Our objectives were to quantify contraceptive risk events and assess contraceptive history and preferences among a population well-equipped to evade contraceptive risks, family planning specialists following initiation of their medical training. "Risk events" are defined as reported episodes of contraceptive failure, emergency contraception use and/or unprotected or underprotected intercourse.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study among current members of a professional organization of family planning specialists. Inclusion criteria included: status as a current or retired clinician, consensual penile-vaginal intercourse since the start of medical training, and personal or partner capacity to become pregnant. Descriptive statistics were performed. This study was IRB exempt.

Results

Among 229 respondents, 157 (69%) reported experiencing a contraceptive risk event since training. Twenty-nine (13%) respondents reported an occurrence within the last year. By category, 47% (108/229; 3 reported unknown) reported under- or unprotected intercourse, 35% (81/229) reported emergency contraception use, and 52% of participants (117/227; 2 unknown) reported known or suspected contraceptive failure. The mean number of contraceptive methods used was 3.7 (SD 1.7) out of the 13 methods listed. Almost all (97%) participants reported at least one method was not an acceptable option, with a mean of 5.6 (SD 2.7) of the 13 listed methods.

Conclusions

The majority of family planning specialists have experienced contraceptive risk events during times of active pregnancy prevention since their medical training. Contraceptive method change is common and most respondents were limited in the number of methods that were personally acceptable to them. Dialogue idealizing the role of contraception in minimizing or eliminating abortion need is simplistic and inaccurately represents the lived realities of pregnancy-capable individuals and their partners, including among those with exceptional contraceptive literacy and access.

Progestins of today and tomorrow

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current literature on the multiple types and uses of progestins in reproductive healthcare.

RECENT FINDINGS

Progestins for contraceptive use are available in multiple forms, with the ongoing development of transdermal, intravaginal, and male contraception formulations. Noncontraceptive use of progestins often overlaps with contraceptive indications, which allows for simultaneous multipurpose progestin use, especially in reproductive-aged patients. More studies are needed to determine contraceptive doses of progestins used for noncontraceptive purposes. Side effect profiles of progestins are dependent on their formulation and cross-reactivity with other steroid receptors. Development of newer progestins includes manipulating pharmacologic properties to avoid undesired side effects.

SUMMARY

Progestins have multiple uses in reproductive healthcare, including contraception, menstrual suppression, endometrial protection, and hormonal replacement therapy. The development of progestins for these indications can expand therapy for people with contraindications to estrogen-based hormonal therapy.