Adherence and acceptability of the contraceptive ring compared with the pill among students: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 20177280
- DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181cf45dc
Adherence and acceptability of the contraceptive ring compared with the pill among students: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objectives: To compare satisfaction with and adherence to the contraceptive vaginal ring and a daily low-dose oral contraceptive pill (OCP) among college and graduate students using a novel method of electronic data collection.
Methods: We randomly assigned 273 women to the contraceptive vaginal ring (n=136) or OCP (n=137) for three consecutive menstrual cycles. Participants completed daily Internet-based, online diaries regarding method adherence and satisfaction during cycles of use. At 3 months, they completed an online survey regarding intention to continue their method and overall acceptability. At 6 months, we surveyed participants to see whether they continued using contraception and, if so, which method.
Results: Rates of loss to follow-up were similar between groups. Contraceptive vaginal ring users reported more perfect use in the first 2 months (P=.05). After the 3-month study period, 52 (43%) of 121 contraceptive vaginal ring users and 65 (52%) of 126 OCP users reported plans to continue their method (P=.16). However, at 6 months, only 31 (26%) of 117 contraceptive vaginal ring users and 36 (29%) of 123 OCP users had continued their assigned study method (P=.61). Almost 50% of both groups were using condoms or no method.
Conclusion: Contraceptive vaginal ring users were more likely to report perfect use during the 3-month trial period than were OCP users. Despite randomization, participants were equally satisfied with their assigned hormonal contraceptive method. At 6 months, less than 30% of participants were still using their assigned method.
Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00635570.
Comment in
-
Adherence and acceptability of the contraceptive ring compared with the pill among students: a randomized controlled trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jul;116(1):194-195. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181e5a895. Obstet Gynecol. 2010. PMID: 20567190 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of combined hormonal vaginal ring and low dose combined oral hormonal pill for the treatment of idiopathic chronic pelvic pain: a randomised trial.Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Dec;207:141-146. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.026. Epub 2016 Nov 8. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016. PMID: 27863271 Clinical Trial.
-
An open-label, randomized crossover study to evaluate the acceptability and preference for contraceptive options in female adolescents, 15 to 19 years of age in Cape Town, as a proxy for HIV prevention methods (UChoose).J Int AIDS Soc. 2020 Oct;23(10):e25626. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25626. J Int AIDS Soc. 2020. PMID: 33034421 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Comparative study on the efficacy and acceptability of two contraceptive pills administered by the vaginal route: an international multicenter clinical trial.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993 Jan;53(1):65-75. doi: 10.1038/clpt.1993.10. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993. PMID: 8422744 Clinical Trial.
-
High acceptability and satisfaction with NuvaRing use.Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002 Dec;7 Suppl 2:31-6; discussion 37-9. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002. PMID: 12659400 Review.
-
The contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing(®), a decade after its introduction.Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2012 Dec;17(6):415-27. doi: 10.3109/13625187.2012.713535. Epub 2012 Oct 31. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2012. PMID: 23113828 Review.
Cited by
-
Qualitative Analysis of Sexually Experienced Female Adolescents: Attitudes about Vaginal Health.J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2016 Oct;29(5):496-500. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2016.04.003. Epub 2016 Apr 29. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2016. PMID: 27133374 Free PMC article.
-
A Qualitative Systematic Review of Women's Experiences Using Contraceptive Vaginal Rings: Implications for New Technologies.Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2019 Oct 4;45:25-34. doi: 10.1363/45e7619. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2019. PMID: 31592770 Free PMC article.
-
Understanding prescription adherence: pharmacy claims data from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project.Contraception. 2011 Apr;83(4):340-5. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.08.003. Epub 2010 Sep 17. Contraception. 2011. PMID: 21397092 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of Combined Parenteral and Oral Hormonal Contraceptives: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 19;13(2):575. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020575. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38276081 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Vaginal ring acceptability: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vaginal ring experiences from around the world.Contraception. 2022 Feb;106:16-33. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.10.001. Epub 2021 Oct 10. Contraception. 2022. PMID: 34644609 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2006;38:90–6.
-
- Rosenberg MJ, Waugh MS, Long S. Unintended pregnancies and use, misuse and discontinuation of oral contraceptives. J Reprod Med 1995;40:355–60.
-
- Oakley D, Potter L, de Leon-Wong E, Visness C. Oral contraceptive use and protective behavior after missed pills. Fam Plann Perspect 1997;29:277–9, 287.
-
- Tessler SL, Peipert JF. Perceptions of contraceptive effectiveness and health effects of oral contraception. Womens Health Issues 1997;7:400–6.
-
- Beckman LJ, Harvey SM. Factors affecting the consistent use of barrier methods of contraception. Obstet Gynecol 1996;88(suppl):65S–71S.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical