Users' understanding of the lactational amenorrhea method and the occurrence of pregnancy

Lactational amenorrhoea method for family planning

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that about 40% of pregnancies in the world are unintended and that the major part of these are unwanted. There are several reasons no or ineffective contraception is used to prevent these pregnancies, including difficulty in obtaining contraceptives. The lactational amenorrhoea method (LAM) is a contraceptive method where the mother is informed and supported in how to use breastfeeding for contraception. LAM is available and accessible to many women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of LAM, as defined in the 1988 Bellagio Consensus statement, as a contraceptive method in fully breastfeeding women, who remain amenorrheic, using pregnancy and menstruation life tables.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and LILACS to 10 October 2014; reference lists of studies; review articles; books related to LAM; published abstracts from breastfeeding, reproductive health conferences; e-mails with study coordinators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Out of 459 potentially relevant studies, 159 investigated the risk of pregnancy during LAM or lactational amenorrhoea. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: prospective study; cases (intervention group) and, if available, controls, had to be sexually active; pregnancy had to be confirmed by physical examination or a pregnancy test. Our endpoints were life table menstruation rates and life table pregnancy rates. We included 15 studies reporting on 11 intervention groups and three control groups. We identified one additional uncontrolled study in the 2007 update and one additional controlled study in this 2015 update.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, resolving disagreements through discussion. We analysed the studies using narrative methods because of their heterogeneity.

MAIN RESULTS

For the primary outcome, pregnancy, two controlled studies of LAM users reported life table pregnancy rates at six months of 0.45% and 2.45%, one controlled study reported 5% pregnancies in the absence of life table rates per month, and eight uncontrolled studies of LAM users reported pregnancy rates of 0% to 7.5%. Life table pregnancy rates for fully breastfeeding women who were amenorrheic but not using any contraceptive method were 0.88% in one study and 0.9% to 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.0 to 2.4) in a second study, depending on the definition of menstruation used. The life table menstruation rate at six months in all studies varied between 11.1% and 39.4%.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear differences in life table pregnancy rates between women using LAM and being supported in doing so, and fully breastfeeding amenorrheic women not using any method. As the length of lactation amenorrhoea in women using LAM differed greatly between the populations studied, and was population specific, it is uncertain whether LAM extends lactational amenorrhoea.

Assessing the quality of data regarding use of the lactational amenorrhea method

This study assesses the quality of Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data regarding self-reported current use of the lactational amenorrhea method (LAM). LAM is an important modern contraceptive method that, when practiced correctly, has a 98 percent effectiveness rate six-months postpartum. The objectives of this study are to examine the accuracy of self-reported LAM use, compared with the constructed correct-practice variable, and to explore differentials in accuracy measures by characteristics at the individual and survey level by analyzing data from 73 DHSs conducted in 45 countries between 1998 and 2011. Findings reveal that only 26 percent of reported LAM users meet the criteria for correct LAM practice. We discuss the implications for future DHS data collection and for family planning and maternal and child health programming.

Lactational amenorrhea for family planning

BACKGROUND

50 % of pregnancies are unwanted. For several reasons including difficulty in obtaining contraceptives, no or ineffective contraception is used to prevent these unwanted pregnancies. The Lactational Amenorrhoea Method(LAM) however is a contraceptive method available and accessible for many women.

OBJECTIVES

To assess in fully breastfeeding women, staying amenorrheic, the efficacy of the Lactational Amenorrhoea Method as a contraceptive method. The efficacy of LAM, as defined in 1988 in Bellagio, was compared with alternative definitions of LAM; the outcomes were measured using pregnancy and menstruation life tables.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE searches from 1966 until 2002 and EMBASE from 1988 until 2002; reference lists of studies and review articles; books related to LAM; published abstracts from breastfeeding, reproductive health, contraceptive conferences; and e-mail communication with coordinators of such studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

From 454 potentially relevant studies 154 investigated the risk of pregnancy during LAM or lactational amenorrhea. Two reviewers applied the following inclusion criteria: prospective study, cases and -if available- controls had to be sexually active, pregnancy had to be confirmed by physical examination or a pregnancy test. Life table menstruation rates and life table pregnancy rates were taken as endpoints. Thirteen publications, reporting on 9 intervention groups and 2 control groups, met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Their quality was assessed.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data, disagreements were resolved through discussion. Because of the heterogeneity of the included studies, the studies were analyzed using narrative methods.

MAIN RESULTS

For the outcome two controlled studies of LAM users reported life table pregnancy rates at 6 months of 0.45 and 2.45 percent and 5 uncontrolled studies of LAM users reported 0-7.5 percent. Life table pregnancy rates of women fully breastfeeding and amenorrheic but not using any contraceptive method were 0.88 in one study and 0.9-1.2 percent (95% CI 0. 0-2.4 ) in a second study, depending on the definition of menstruation used. The life table menstruation rate at 6 months in all studies varied between 11.1-39.4 percent.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

No clear difference in life table pregnancy rates was found between women using LAM and supported in doing so, and fully breastfeeding, amenorroic women not using any method. Because the length of lactation amenorrhoea of women using LAM is too different between populations studied, and population specific, it is uncertain whether LAM extends lactational amenorrhoea.

Policy considerations for the introduction and promotion of the lactational amenorrhea method: advantages and disadvantages of LAM

Some attributes of LAM are unquestionably positive, such as the fact that it is effective. Clinical trials of LAM have upheld the Bellagio Consensus that the chance of pregnancy is less than 2% in the first 6 months postpartum in amenorrheic women who are fully or nearly fully breastfeeding. Secondary data analyses in numerous settings have drawn the same conclusion. Whether as a strategy or a method, used correctly or even if used imperfectly, LAM is a reliable way to avoid pregnancy. To the extent that LAM represents an additional contraceptive option, this is also clearly positive since a broad array of contraceptive options maximizes the likelihood of finding a good fit between user and method, and increases contraceptive use. Other characteristics of LAM represent potentially positive impacts. If LAM is shown to be an effective conduit to other modern methods, the implications are profoundly positive. If LAM is cost effective, for households and/or for programs, this will also make the method extraordinarily attractive. Conversely, some aspects of LAM are negative, such as the fact that it affords no protection against STDs, it requires counseling from a well-informed provider, and intensive breastfeeding can make heavy demands on the woman's time. Many of the remaining attributes of LAM may not be important to a policy decision about LAM promotion. For example, whether LAM is actualized as a strategy or a method may not be important to a decision to promote LAM, although it has a huge impact on how services are delivered. Some factors may be profound on a local or individual level. For example, one simple factor, such as the absence of full/nearly full breastfeeding, can rule out the method as an option, while another, such as the fact that it provides the needed waiting period during vasectomy counseling, can make LAM the method of choice. Although LAM seems unlikely to have widespread popularity in societies like the United States, within such settings are breastfeeding women for whom other contraceptive choices are not satisfactory and to whom LAM is attractive. Although clinicians cannot be expected to directly provide LAM education in every setting, women should be informed about LAM as an effective contraceptive choice, and clinicians should be prepared to make referrals to competent sources. The future of LAM, especially in terms of formal, programmatic initiatives, may continue to be focussed in transitional and less developed settings. Comparative cost/benefit analyses for both the family planning program and the household will contribute meaningfully to decisions about whether to use LAM and whether to include LAM in national and local family planning policies and programs. The most important call to action is to implement operations research designed to determine what factors, if any, will maximize the uptake of a second modern contraceptive method after LAM protection expires among never-users of family planning, to compare this with other contraceptive strategies, and to evaluate the cost aspects. If the potential of LAM to be a conduit to other modern contraceptive methods is effectively realized, the method can be profoundly important in the development of communities and in family formation. Because LAM is effective in preventing pregnancies, and because it extends the range of contraceptive choices, considering LAM on the policy level is always appropriate. Despite the array of drawbacks to LAM, as with any other family planning method, the potential assets of LAM, especially the promise to introduce nonusers to contraception, are sufficiently important to warrant the introduction of LAM within an operations research framework to both capitalize on its intrinsic strengths and determine its programmatic robustness. In the 10 years since the concept of LAM was pronounced as the Bellagio Consensus, claims have been made both for and against its use. During this time, program and policy leaders have been giv