TABLE 3.
Contraceptive use and preferencesa
| Contraceptive methodb | Before visit | Future wishes | P valuec |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline (n = 141) | 0.16 | ||
| Very effective contraception | 7 (5.0) | 11 (7.8) | |
| Effective contraception | 11 (7.8) | 18 (12.7) | |
| Less effective contraception | 100 (70.9) | 92 (65.2) | |
| Not effective contraception | 20 (14.2) | 19 (13.5) | |
| Unknown | 3 (2.1) | 1 (0.7) | |
| Post intervention (n = 107) | |||
| Very effective contraception | 6 (5.6) | 32 (30.0) | <0.001 |
| Effective contraception | 11 (10.3) | 14 (13.1) | |
| Less effective contraception | 73 (68.2) | 46 (43.0) | |
| Not effective contraception | 13 (12.2) | 11 (10.3) | |
| Unknown | 4 (3.7) | 4 (3.7) |
a
Data are given as number (percentage).
b
Very effective contraception included the copper and hormonal intrauterine contraceptive device, the levonorgestrel and etonogestrel implants and tubal ligation. Effective contraception included the 3-monthly injectable (DMPA, Depo Provera) and oral contraceptive pill (both combined and progesterone only). Less effective contraception included the male and female condom. Not effective contraception included no method and abstinence. No patients in either survey indicated using natural methods, withdrawal, the patch or the ring.
c
P relates to within-participant comparison.