Multimedialna platforma wiedzy medycznej Internetowa Księgarnia Medyczna Kalendarium Konferencji
Ginekologia Polska
MENU
Shortcuts Submit an article Author Guidelines Ahead Of Print Reviewers 2022

open access

Vol 88, No 12 (2017)
Research paper
Published online: 2017-12-29
View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

What influences women’s contraceptive choice? A cross-sectional study from Turkey

Ilker Kahramanoglu, Merve Baktiroglu, Hasan Turan, Ozge Kahramanoglu, Fatma Ferda Verit, Oguz Yucel
DOI: 10.5603/GP.a2017.0115
·
Pubmed: 29303220
·
Ginekol Pol 2017;88(12):639-646.

open access

Vol 88, No 12 (2017)
ORIGINAL PAPERS Gynecology
Published online: 2017-12-29

Abstract

Objectives: In our study, we tried to investigate the determinants of women’s choices about contraception with the aim of discovering whether or not there is a difference in their preferences before and after consultation with a gynaecologist. Material and methods: A total of 1058 women were enrolled. They were given detailed information regarding contraception and contraceptive methods. Subsequently, a survey which was made of 21 questions was administered. Results: Contraceptive counselling significantly changed the contraceptive choice of women. However, influences from social media and friends, their partners and religious belief affected their contraceptive choices. Significant differences in contraceptive choice were observed when women were categorized according to their marital status, education level, household income, age, and number of children. Conclusions: Although contraceptive counselling influenced Turkish women’s choices, there were still other determinants like social media and input from outside sources such as clerics and husbands, which should be overcome.

Abstract

Objectives: In our study, we tried to investigate the determinants of women’s choices about contraception with the aim of discovering whether or not there is a difference in their preferences before and after consultation with a gynaecologist. Material and methods: A total of 1058 women were enrolled. They were given detailed information regarding contraception and contraceptive methods. Subsequently, a survey which was made of 21 questions was administered. Results: Contraceptive counselling significantly changed the contraceptive choice of women. However, influences from social media and friends, their partners and religious belief affected their contraceptive choices. Significant differences in contraceptive choice were observed when women were categorized according to their marital status, education level, household income, age, and number of children. Conclusions: Although contraceptive counselling influenced Turkish women’s choices, there were still other determinants like social media and input from outside sources such as clerics and husbands, which should be overcome.

Full Text:

View PDF Download PDF file
Get Citation

Keywords

combined oral contraceptive, condom, contraception, intrauterine device, tubal ligation

About this article
Title

What influences women’s contraceptive choice? A cross-sectional study from Turkey

Journal

Ginekologia Polska

Issue

Vol 88, No 12 (2017)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

639-646

Published online

2017-12-29

Page views

1424

Article views/downloads

1396

DOI

10.5603/GP.a2017.0115

Pubmed

29303220

Bibliographic record

Ginekol Pol 2017;88(12):639-646.

Keywords

combined oral contraceptive
condom
contraception
intrauterine device
tubal ligation

Authors

Ilker Kahramanoglu
Merve Baktiroglu
Hasan Turan
Ozge Kahramanoglu
Fatma Ferda Verit
Oguz Yucel

References (25)
  1. Sedgh G, Singh S, Hussain R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plann. 2014; 45(3): 301–314.
    CrossRefPubMed
  2. Ong J, Temple-Smith M, Wong WCW, et al. Contraception matters: indicators of poor usage of contraception in sexually active women attending family planning clinics in Victoria, Australia. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 1108.
    CrossRefPubMed
  3. Donnelly KZ, Foster TC, Thompson R. What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making. Contraception. 2014; 90(3): 280–287.
    CrossRefPubMed
  4. Rosenstock J, Peipert J, Madden T, et al. Continuation of Reversible Contraception in Teenagers and Young Women. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012; 120(6): 1298–1305.
    CrossRef
  5. Erol N, Durusoy R, Ergin I, et al. Unintended pregnancy and prenatal care: a study from a maternity hospital in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010; 15(4): 290–300.
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. Hacettepe Universitesi Nufus Etutleri Enstitusu (HUNEE) Turkiye Nufus ve Saglik Arastirmasi. T.C. Kalkinma Bakanligi ve TUBITAK, Publication No. NEE-HÜ.09.01 ISBN 978-975-491-274-6 Ankara, Türkiye, 2013.
  7. Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, et al. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203(2): 115.e1–115.e7.
    CrossRefPubMed
  8. Madden T, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, et al. Comparison of contraceptive method chosen by women with and without a recent history of induced abortion. Contraception. 2011; 84(6): 571–577.
    CrossRefPubMed
  9. Shih SL, Kebodeaux CA, Secura GM, et al. Baseline correlates of inconsistent and incorrect condom use among sexually active women in the contraceptive CHOICE Project. Sex Transm Dis. 2011; 38(11): 1012–1019.
    CrossRefPubMed
  10. Mestad R, Secura G, Allsworth JE, et al. Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Contraception. 2011; 84(5): 493–498.
    CrossRefPubMed
  11. Rosenstock JR, Peipert JF, Madden T, et al. Continuation of Reversible Contraception in Teenagers and Young Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1298–1305.
    CrossRef
  12. Elaut E, Buysse A, Caen M, et al. Contraceptive use in Flanders (Belgium): A comparison between a general population sample and a Turkish ethnic minority sample. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015; 20(4): 283–295.
    CrossRefPubMed
  13. Elm Ev, Altman D, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008; 61(4): 344–349.
    CrossRef
  14. Grimes DA, Gallo MF, Grigorieva V, et al. Fertility awareness-based methods for contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2004.
    CrossRef
  15. Lawrie TA, Helmerhorst FM, Maitra NK, et al. Types of progestogens in combined oral contraception: effectiveness and side-effects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011(5): CD004861.
    CrossRefPubMed
  16. Lopez L, Newmann S, Grimes D, et al. Immediate start of hormonal contraceptives for contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012.
    CrossRef
  17. Arrowsmith ME, Aicken CRH, Saxena S, et al. Strategies for improving the acceptability and acceptance of the copper intrauterine device. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(3): CD008896.
    CrossRefPubMed
  18. Lopez LM, Steiner M, Grimes DA, et al. Strategies for communicating contraceptive effectiveness. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(4): CD006964.
    CrossRefPubMed
  19. Dehlendorf C, Fox E, Sobel L, et al. Patient-Centered Contraceptive Counseling: Evidence to Inform Practice. Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports. 2016; 5(1): 55–63.
    CrossRef
  20. Fiebig DG, Viney R, Knox S, et al. Consideration sets and their role in modelling doctor recommendations about contraceptives. Health Econ. 2017; 26: 54–73.
  21. Adebowale SA, Adedini SA, Ibisomi LD, et al. Differential effect of wealth quintile on modern contraceptive use and fertility: evidence from Malawian women. BMC Womens Health. 2014; 14(1): 40.
    CrossRefPubMed
  22. Molloy GJ, Sweeney LA, Byrne M, et al. Prescription contraception use: a cross-sectional population study of psychosocial determinants. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(8): e007794.
    CrossRefPubMed
  23. Alpu O, Fidan H. On the use of contraceptive methods among married women in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2006; 11(3): 228–236.
    CrossRefPubMed
  24. Cindoglu D, Sirkeci I, Sirkeci RF. Determinants of choosing withdrawal over modern contraceptive methods in Turkey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008; 13(4): 412–421.
    CrossRefPubMed
  25. Dutta M, Husain Z. Do slum dwellers have lower contraceptive prevalence rates? An analysis of current use patterns in Calcutta, India. Asia-Pacific Population Journal. 2011; 26(4): 29–56.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By VM Media Group sp. z o.o., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl