3
Revista Matronas

Revista Matronas

DICIEMBRE 2014 N° 3 Volumen 2

Subcutaneous implant-based contraception. A four-year experience and impact on quality of life improvement in socially excluded women

Section: Originales

Authors

1M. José  Espinaco Garrido, 1José Román Oliver, 2Juan Muñoz Jigato, 3Cristina Domínguez Espinaco

Position

1Matrona de Atención Primaria. Distrito Sevilla. 2Estudiante de Enfermería.3Enfermera.

Contact email: pepaespinaco@hotmail.com

Abstract

Purpose: The problem of shanty slums in Seville has a special significance, probably due to the fact that Seville has the oldest and one of the largest slums in Europe, the so-called “Vacie”. Some 800 socially excluded people are currently living there. Women have there the added problem of a common early-age reproduction and a high number of unintended pregnancies. Our main objective was to review a four-year experience with contraceptive subcutaneous implantation in this population. Secondary aims were to understand socio-obstetric profile of women, reasons for using or withdrawing such contraceptive devices, and implant acceptability and tolerability.
Material and methods: A retrospective observational study in a sample of 269 contraceptive implants in women aged 15 to 44 years, over the period 2010 – 2013 was carried out. Relevant data were obtained during review exams and were recorded in a specifically developed registry of implantation/withdrawal.
Results: Mean age of participants was 27.03 years. Mean abortion rate was 0.68% and mean use of urgent contraception was 0.51%. Reported reasons for using such a contraceptive method were as follows: 34.20% due to difficulties for using alternative methods; 13.40% because of intolerance; and 52.40% due to low economic resources. Reasons for withdrawal were as follows: device withdrawal was decided by 3.65% of users before completing three years of use. Intolerance to bleeding patterns was the alleged reason in 62% of them and intended pregnancy was the reason in 34.20 %. Contraceptive method use continuity was 96.35%, with 97.50% tolerability. All women in the study reported this was an effective method and 84.32% considered it to be excellent.
Conclusions: An excellent result, similar to the one in other studies, was achieved. A repeated implantation was performed in 90% of users after first implant withdrawal due to expiration.

Keywords:

Subcutaneous hormonal implant; socially excluded population; implant acceptability and tolerability

Versión en Español

Título:

Anticoncepción mediante el uso del implante subcutáneo. Cuatro años de experiencia y su repercusión en la mejora de la calidad de vida en mujeres en situación de exclusión social

Artículo completo no disponible en este idioma / Full article is not available in this language

Bibliography

  1. Información demográfica de la población de El Vacie y sus características. Protocolo del Distrito Sanitario Sevilla 2007/09; 98:357.
  2. Organización de Naciones Unidas (ONU). 4ª Conferencia Mundial sobre la Mujer. Declaración y Plataforma de Acción de Beijing. Beijing; 1995.
  3. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Recomendaciones sobre prácticas seleccionadas para el uso de anticonceptivos. 2ª ed. Ginebra: OMS; 2005.
  4. Bhatia P, Nangia S, Aggarwal S, Tewari C. Implanon: Subdermal Single Rod Contraceptive Implant India. Aug 2011; 61(4):422-425.
  5. Trillo C, Navarro JA, Luque MA, Seoane J. Guía Práctica de Planificación Familiar en Atención Primaria. 2ª ed. Samfyc; 2008.
  6. Aisien AO, Enosolease ME. Safety, efficacy and acceptability of implanon a single rod implantable contraceptive (etonogestrel) in University of Benin Teaching Hospital. Niger J Clin Pract 2010 Sep; 13(3):331-335.
  7. Heather Hohmann. Examining the efficacy, safety, and patient acceptability of the etonogestrel implantable contraceptive. Patient Prefer Adherence 2009; 3: 205-211.
  8. Madden T, Eisenberg DL, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Continuation of the etonogestrel implant in women undergoing immediate postabortion placement. Obstet Gynecol 2012 Nov; 120(5):1053-59.
  9. Arribas Mir L, Rueda Lozano D, Agrela Cardona M, Cedeño Benavides T, Olvera Porcel C, Bueno Cavanillas A. Insertion and 3-year follow-up experience of 372 etonogestrel subdermal contraceptive implants by family physicians in Granada, Spain. Contraception 2009 Nov; 80(5):457-462.
  10. Power J, Franch R, Cowan F. Anticonceptivos implantables subdérmicos versus otras formas de anticonceptivos reversibles como métodos eficaces de prevención de embarazo. La Biblioteca Cochrane Plus 2008 número 4.
  11. Mattos I. Satisfacción, eficacia y efectos secundarios del implante subdérmico (Implanon®) en dos centros de atención a la mujer de la Comunidad de Madrid. Contracepción enero-febrero 2004; 21(1):93-99.
  12. Domínguez V, Ávila P, Espinaco MJ, Román J. Estudio sobre accesibilidad y tolerabilidad del uso de implantes hormonales subdérmicos en una población de exclusión social en Sevilla. Aten Primaria 2011; 43(12):656-661.