Contraceptive Behaviors in Polish Women Aged 18–35—A Cross-Sectional Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. General Information
2.2. Survey Questionnaire
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study Population
3.2. Sources of Information about Contraception
3.3. Choice of Contraception
3.4. Factors Influencing the Choice of Contraception
3.5. Satisfaction with Current Method of Contraception
3.6. Side Effects of Hormonal Contraception
3.7. Contraceptive Counselling
3.8. Other Raised Issues
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Declaration
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. In Trends in Contraceptive Use Worldwide 2015; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Family Planning 2017—Highlights 2017, ST/ESA/SER.A/414; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Glowny Urzad Statystyczny (GUS) [Statistics Poland]. Stan zdrowia ludności Polski w 2009r; [The health Status of the Polish Population in 2009]; GUS: Warsaw, Poland, 2009.
- Alkema, L.; Kantorova, V.; Menozzi, C.; Biddlecom, A. National, regional, and global rates and trends in contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning between 1990 and 2015: A systematic and comprehensive analysis. Lancet 2013, 381, 1642–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sedgh, G.; Singh, S.; Hussain, R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud. Fam. Plann. 2014, 45, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mansour, D.; Inki, P.; Gemzell-Danielsson, K. Efficacy of contraceptive methods: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2010, 15, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hubacher, D.; Trussell, J. A definition of modern contraceptive methods. Contraception 2015, 92, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jain, R.; Muralidhar, S. Contraceptive methods: Needs, options and utilization. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India 2011, 61, 626–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Luchowski, A.T.; Anderson, B.L.; Power, M.L.; Raglan, G.B.; Espey, E.; Schulkin, J. Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: Long-acting reversible contraception practices and education. Contraception 2014, 89, 578–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Marshall, C.; Kandahari, N.; Raine-Bennett, T. Exploring young women’s decisional needs for contraceptive method choice: A qualitative study. Contraception 2018, 97, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Christin-Maitre, S. History of oral contraceptive drugs and their use worldwide. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2013, 27, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darroch, J.E. Trends in contraceptive use. Contraception 2013, 87, 259–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kavanaugh, M.L.; Jerman, J. Contraceptive method use in the United States: Trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014. Contraception 2018, 97, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skouby, S.O. Contraceptive use and behavior in the 21st century: A comprehensive study across five European countries. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2004, 9, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Oliveira da Silva, M.; Jahn, A.; Karro, H.; Olsen, J.; Bloemenkamp, K.; Temmerman, M.; Gissler, M.; Hannaford, P.; Fronteira, I. The Reproductive Health Report: The state of sexual and reproductive health within the European Union. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2011, 16 (Suppl 1), S1–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srikanthan, A.; Reid, R.L. Religious and cultural influences on contraception. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2008, 30, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colleran, H.; Mace, R. Social network and community-level influences on contraceptive use: Evidence from rural Poland. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20150398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nowosielski, K.; Kurpisz, J.; Kowalczyk, R. Sexual self-schema: A cognitive schema and its relationship to choice of contraceptive method among Polish women. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2019, 24, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wyatt, K.D.; Anderson, R.T.; Creedon, D.; Montori, V.M.; Bachman, J.; Erwin, P.; LeBlanc, A. Women’s values in contraceptive choice: A systematic review of relevant attributes included in decision aids. BMC Womens Health 2014, 14, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harris, K.; Byrd, K.; Engel, M.; Weeks, K.; Ahlers-Schmidt, C.R. Internet-Based Information on Long-Acting Reversible Contraception for Adolescents. J. Prim. Care Community Health 2016, 7, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khurana, A.; Bleakley, A. Young adults’ sources of contraceptive information: Variations based on demographic characteristics and sexual risk behaviors. Contraception 2015, 91, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yee, L.; Simon, M. The role of the social network in contraceptive decision-making among young, African American and Latina women. J. Adolesc. Health 2010, 47, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warzecha, D.; Szymusik, I.; Pietrzak, B.; Kosinska-Kaczynska, K.; Sierdzinski, J.; Sochacki-Wojcicka, N.; Wielgos, M. Sex education in Poland—A cross-sectional study evaluating over twenty thousand polish women’s knowledge of reproductive health issues and contraceptive methods. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, K.S.; McDermott Sales, J.; Komro, K.A.; Santelli, J. The State of Sex Education in the United States. J. Adolesc. Health 2016, 58, 595–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kumar, R.; Goyal, A.; Singh, P.; Bhardwaj, A.; Mittal, A.; Yadav, S.S. Knowledge Attitude and Perception of Sex Education among School Going Adolescents in Ambala District, Haryana, India: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2017, 11, LC01–LC04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Merki-Feld, G.S.; Felder, S.; Roelli, C.; Imthurn, B.; Stewart, M.; Bateson, D. Is there a need for better sexual education of young men? Sexual behaviour and reproductive health in Swiss university students: A questionnaire-based pilot study. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2018, 23, 154–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Durda-Masny, M.; Jarzabek-Bielecka, G.; Szwed, A.; Hanc, T.; Czapla, Z.; Kaczmarek, M. Trends over time in age at sexual debut among Polish women and underlying socio-economic determinants. Anthropol. Anz. 2018, 75, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Olszewski, J.; Olszewska, H.; Abacjew-Chmylko, A.; Chmylko, L.; Gaworska-Krzeminska, A.; Wydra, D. Sexual behavior and contraception among young Polish women. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2010, 89, 1447–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dehlendorf, C.; Levy, K.; Kelley, A.; Grumbach, K.; Steinauer, J. Women’s preferences for contraceptive counseling and decision making. Contraception 2013, 88, 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bitzer, J.; Gemzell-Danielsson, K.; Roumen, F.; Marintcheva-Petrova, M.; van Bakel, B.; Oddens, B.J. The CHOICE study: Effect of counselling on the selection of combined hormonal contraceptive methods in 11 countries. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2012, 17, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, L.M.; Parkes, A.; Wight, D.; Petticrew, M.; Hart, G.J. Limits to modern contraceptive use among young women in developing countries: A systematic review of qualitative research. Reprod. Health 2009, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, M.; Sahin-Hodoglugil, N.N.; Potts, M. Barriers to fertility regulation: A review of the literature. Stud. Fam. Plann. 2006, 37, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hindin, M.J.; McGough, L.J.; Adanu, R.M. Misperceptions, misinformation and myths about modern contraceptive use in Ghana. J. Fam. Plann. Reprod. Health Care 2014, 40, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boozalis, A.; Tutlam, N.T.; Chrisman Robbins, C.; Peipert, J.F. Sexual Desire and Hormonal Contraception. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016, 127, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.J.; Tan, T.C.; Ang, S.B. Female sexual dysfunction with combined oral contraceptive use. Singap. Med. J. 2017, 58, 285–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schaffir, J. Hormonal contraception and sexual desire: A critical review. J. Sex Marital Ther. 2006, 32, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wiebe, E.R.; Brotto, L.A.; MacKay, J. Characteristics of women who experience mood and sexual side effects with use of hormonal contraception. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2011, 33, 1234–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pastor, Z.; Holla, K.; Chmel, R. The influence of combined oral contraceptives on female sexual desire: A systematic review. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2013, 18, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaffir, J.; Worly, B.L.; Gur, T.L. Combined hormonal contraception and its effects on mood: A critical review. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2016, 21, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gallo, M.F.; Lopez, L.M.; Grimes, D.A.; Carayon, F.; Schulz, K.F.; Helmerhorst, F.M. Combination contraceptives: Effects on weight. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindh, I.; Ellstrom, A.A.; Milsom, I. The long-term influence of combined oral contraceptives on body weight. Hum. Reprod. 2011, 26, 1917–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Iversen, L.; Sivasubramaniam, S.; Lee, A.J.; Fielding, S.; Hannaford, P.C. Lifetime cancer risk and combined oral contraceptives: The Royal College of General Practitioners’ Oral Contraception Study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 216, 580.e1–580.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slopien, R.; Milewska, E.; Rynio, P.; Meczekalski, B. Use of oral contraceptives for management of acne vulgaris and hirsutism in women of reproductive and late reproductive age. Prz. Menopauzalny 2018, 17, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arowojolu, A.O.; Gallo, M.F.; Lopez, L.M.; Grimes, D.A. Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nappi, C.; Bifulco, G.; Tommaselli, G.A.; Gargano, V.; Di Carlo, C. Hormonal contraception and bone metabolism: A systematic review. Contraception 2012, 86, 606–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fiala, C.; Chabbert-Buffet, N.; Hausler, G.; Jamin, C.; Lete, I.; Lobo, P.; Nappi, R.E.; Pintiaux, A. Women’s preferences for menstrual bleeding frequency in 12 European countries: The Inconvenience Due to Women’s Monthly Bleeding (ISY) survey. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2017, 22, 268–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gaudet, L.M.; Kives, S.; Hahn, P.M.; Reid, R.L. What women believe about oral contraceptives and the effect of counseling. Contraception 2004, 69, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Picardo, C.M.; Nichols, M.; Edelman, A.; Jensen, J.T. Women’s knowledge and sources of information on the risks and benefits of oral contraception. J. Am. Med. Womens Assoc. 2003, 58, 112–116. [Google Scholar]
- Zapata, L.B.; Tregear, S.J.; Curtis, K.M.; Tiller, M.; Pazol, K.; Mautone-Smith, N.; Gavin, L.E. Impact of Contraceptive Counseling in Clinical Settings: A Systematic Review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 49, S31–S45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Koyama, A.; Hagopian, L.; Linden, J. Emerging options for emergency contraception. Clin. Med. Insights Reprod. Health 2013, 7, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cleland, K.; Raymond, E.G.; Westley, E.; Trussell, J. Emergency contraception review: Evidence-based recommendations for clinicians. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014, 57, 741–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krassovics, M.; Viragh, G. Usage patterns and attitudes towards emergency contraception: The International Emergency Contraception Research Initiative. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2016, 21, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lech, M.M.; Ostrowska, L.; Swiatek, E. Emergency contraception in a country with restricted access to contraceptives and termination of pregnancy, a prospective follow-up study. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2013, 92, 1183–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pruitt, S.L.; Mullen, P.D. Contraception or abortion? Inaccurate descriptions of emergency contraception in newspaper articles, 1992–2002. Contraception 2005, 71, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moreau, C.; Bouyer, J.; Goulard, H.; Bajos, N. The remaining barriers to the use of emergency contraception: Perception of pregnancy risk by women undergoing induced abortions. Contraception 2005, 71, 202–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Metcalfe, A.; Talavlikar, R.; du Prey, B.; Tough, S.C. Exploring the relationship between socioeconomic factors, method of contraception and unintended pregnancy. Reprod. Health 2016, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gosling, S.D.; Vazire, S.; Srivastava, S.; John, O.P. Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. Am. Psychol. 2004, 59, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ekman, A.; Dickman, P.W.; Klint, A.; Weiderpass, E.; Litton, J.E. Feasibility of using web-based questionnaires in large population-based epidemiological studies. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2006, 21, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Byker, T.; Myers, C.; Graff, M. Can a social media campaign increase the use of long-acting reversible contraception? Evidence from a cluster randomized control trial using Facebook. Contraception 2019, 100, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variable | % (n) |
---|---|
Age [years old] | |
26.4 (average) | standard deviation 3.9 |
18–24 | 34% (n = 2268) |
25–29 | 44% (n = 2955) |
30–35 | 23% (n = 1540) |
Education | |
Primary | <1% (n = 43) |
Secondary | 29% (n = 1950) |
Vocational | 1% (n = 75) |
Higher | 69% (n = 4695) |
Place of residence | |
Rural and city < 5000 inhabitants | 20% (n = 1324) |
City 5000–200,000 inhabitants | 35% (n = 2368) |
City 200,000–1,000,000 inhabitants | 30% (n = 2000) |
City > 1,000,000 | 16% (n = 1071) |
Estimated income/one family member per month | |
<1000 PLN (~0–230 EUR) | 17% (n = 1167) |
>1000–2500 PLN (~230–580 EUR) | 53% (n = 3596) |
>2500–3500 PLN (~580–815 EUR) | 16% (n = 1075) |
>3500 PLN (>815 EUR) | 14% (n = 925) |
Relationship status | |
Married | 49% (n = 3312) |
Informal relationship | 46% (n = 3119) |
Single | 5% (n = 332) |
Offspring | |
No children | 60% (n = 4080) |
One child | 27% (n = 1806) |
Two or more children | 13% (n = 877) |
Physical activity | |
Few times a week | 18% (n = 1200) |
Once a week | 13% (n = 900) |
Occasionally | 55% (n = 3709) |
Not at all | 14% (n = 954) |
Smoking | |
Yes, regularly | 10% (n = 703) |
Yes, occasionally | 9% (n = 635) |
Not at all | 80% (n = 5425) |
Chronic diseases | |
Thyroid diseases | 13% (n = 867) |
Asthma | 2% (n = 143) |
Diabetes or prediabetes | 1% (n = 86) |
Hypertension | <1% (n = 51) |
Contraception Method | |
---|---|
Condoms in total * | 50% (n = 3375) |
COCs ** | 38% (n = 2586) |
Condoms only | 24% (n = 1642) |
Withdrawal | 17% (n = 1171) |
Natural family planning | 13% (n = 897) |
Vaginal ring | 4% (n = 263) |
Transdermal patch | 3% (n = 202) |
Progestogen-only pills | 2% (n = 163) |
Hormonal IUD *** | 2% (n = 142) |
Copper IUD | 2% (n = 105) |
Implant | <1% (n = 54) |
Medroxyprogesterone injection | <1% (n = 16) |
Female condom | <1% (n = 13) |
Vasectomy | <1% (n = 3) |
Factor | aOR (95% CI) * | p-Value |
Education | ||
Primary/Secondary/Vocational | 1.18 (1.04; 1.33) | 0.009 |
Higher | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Relationship status | ||
Single | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Informal relationship | 0.56 (0.42; 0.76) | <0.001 |
Married | 0.32 (0.24; 0.44) | <0.001 |
Offspring | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.60 (0.52; 0.68) | <0.001 |
Number of sexual partners | 1.02 (1.00; 1.04) | 0.015 |
Frequency of intercourses | 1.12 (1.06; 1.19) | <0.001 |
Sources of information | ||
Internet | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.66 (0.57; 0.76) | <0.001 |
Doctor | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 2.87 (2.52; 3.27) | <0.001 |
Books and magazines | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.66 (0.59; 0.75) | <0.001 |
Drug leaflets | ||
No | 1.00 (ref.) | - |
Yes | 1.30 (1.15; 1.47) | <0.001 |
Friends | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.77 (0.68; 0.86) | <0.001 |
School | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.55 (0.45; 0.68) | <0.001 |
Factors considered most important in the choice of method | ||
Efficacy | - | |
No | 1.00 (reference) | |
Yes | 2.12 (1.79; 2.52) | <0.001 |
Impact on health | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.33 (0.29; 0.37) | <0.001 |
Price | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 1.34 (1.13; 1.59) | 0.001 |
Ideological issues | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.19 (0.13; 0.28) | <0.001 |
Factor | aOR (95% CI) * | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Age | 1.07 (1.03; 1.11) | <0.001 |
Relationship status | ||
Single | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Informal relationship | 0.49 (0.29; 0.84) | 0.01 |
Married | 0.38 (0.22; 0.67) | 0.001 |
Offspring | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 4.69 (3.43; 6.41) | <0.001 |
Smoking | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Occasionally | 1.29 (0.86; 1.93) | 0.224 |
Yes | 1.75 (1.26; 2.45) | 0.001 |
Sources of information | ||
Doctor | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 1.39 (1.02; 1.88) | 0.035 |
Books and magazines | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.73 (0.56; 0.96) | 0.024 |
Factors considered most important in the choice of method | ||
Efficacy | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | |
Yes | 1.93 (1.28; 2.90) | 0.002 |
Comfort of use | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 2.63 (2.06; 3.36) | <0.001 |
Price | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.45 (0.27; 0.74) | 0.002 |
Ideological issues | ||
No | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Yes | 0.21 (0.05; 0.87) | 0.032 |
Satisfaction with Applied Method | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Method | Yes | No | ||||
n | % | n | % | OR (95%CI) * | p-Value | |
Condoms only (n = 1642) | 1401 | 85% | 241 | 15% | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Withdrawal only (n = 261) | 232 | 89% | 29 | 11% | 1.38 (0.91–2.07) | 0.125 |
Natural family planning only (268) | 260 | 97% | 8 | 3% | 5.59 (2.73–11.45) | <0.001 |
COCs ** only (n = 1807) | 1679 | 93% | 128 | 7% | 2.26 (1.80–2.83) | <0.001 |
Vaginal ring only (n = 224) | 215 | 96% | 9 | 4% | 4.11 (2.08–8.12) | <0.001 |
Transdermal patch only (n = 168) | 149 | 89% | 19 | 11% | 1.35 (0.82–2.22) | 0.2359 |
Progesterone-only pills only (n = 134) | 110 | 82% | 24 | 18% | 0.79 (0.50–1.25) | 0.1951 |
Hormonal IUD *** only (n = 131) | 129 | 98% | 2 | 2% | 11.10 (2.73–45.14) | <0.001 |
Side Effects Methods | Yes | No | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | OR (95%CI) * | p-Value | |
Decreased Libido | ||||||
COCs ** (n = 2586) | 941 | 36% | 1645 | 64% | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Vaginal ring (n = 263) | 103 | 39% | 160 | 61% | 1.13 (0.87–1.46) | 0.374 |
Transdermal patch (n = 202) | 72 | 36% | 130 | 64% | 0.97 (0.72–1.31) | 0.832 |
Progestogen-only pills (n = 163) | 56 | 34% | 107 | 66% | 0.91 (0.66–1.28) | 0.601 |
Hormonal IUD *** (n = 142) | 23 | 16% | 119 | 84% | 0.34 (0.21–0.53) | <0.001 |
Weight Gain | ||||||
COCs (n = 2586) | 617 | 24% | 1969 | 76% | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Vaginal ring (n = 263) | 46 | 17% | 217 | 83% | 0.68 (0.49–0.94) | 0.020 |
Transdermal patch (n = 202) | 51 | 25% | 151 | 75% | 1.08 (0.77–1.50) | 0.656 |
Progestogen-only pills (n = 163) | 34 | 21% | 129 | 79% | 0.84 (0.57–1.24) | 0.382 |
Hormonal IUD (n = 142) | 10 | 7% | 132 | 93% | 0.24 (0.13–0.46) | <0.001 |
Mood Disorders | ||||||
COCs (n = 2586) | 611 | 24% | 1975 | 76% | 1.00 (reference) | - |
Vaginal ring (n = 263) | 34 | 13% | 229 | 87% | 0.48 (0.33–0.70) | <0.001 |
Transdermal patch (n = 202) | 29 | 14% | 173 | 86% | 0.54 (0.36–0.81) | 0.003 |
Progestogen-only pills (n = 163) | 27 | 17% | 136 | 83% | 0.64 (0.42–0.98) | 0.038 |
Hormonal IUD (n = 142) | 12 | 8% | 130 | 92% | 0.30 (0.16–0.54) | <0.001 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zgliczynska, M.; Szymusik, I.; Sierocinska, A.; Bajaka, A.; Rowniak, M.; Sochacki-Wojcicka, N.; Wielgos, M.; Kosinska-Kaczynska, K. Contraceptive Behaviors in Polish Women Aged 18–35—A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2723. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152723
Zgliczynska M, Szymusik I, Sierocinska A, Bajaka A, Rowniak M, Sochacki-Wojcicka N, Wielgos M, Kosinska-Kaczynska K. Contraceptive Behaviors in Polish Women Aged 18–35—A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(15):2723. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152723
Chicago/Turabian StyleZgliczynska, Magdalena, Iwona Szymusik, Aleksandra Sierocinska, Armand Bajaka, Martyna Rowniak, Nicole Sochacki-Wojcicka, Miroslaw Wielgos, and Katarzyna Kosinska-Kaczynska. 2019. "Contraceptive Behaviors in Polish Women Aged 18–35—A Cross-Sectional Study" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 15: 2723. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152723
APA StyleZgliczynska, M., Szymusik, I., Sierocinska, A., Bajaka, A., Rowniak, M., Sochacki-Wojcicka, N., Wielgos, M., & Kosinska-Kaczynska, K. (2019). Contraceptive Behaviors in Polish Women Aged 18–35—A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(15), 2723. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16152723