The relationship between the use of combined hormonal contraception with a predominance of gestagens and the selected types of female body in young women from the region of Lower Silesia

Aleksandra Karykowska; Barbara Kwiatkowska; Joanna Grzelak; Bożena Kurc-Darak; Zygmunt Domagała

doi:10.2478/anre-2018-0017

Authors

Aleksandra Karykowska Division of Anatomy Department of Morphology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
Barbara Kwiatkowska Department of Anthropology, Wroclaw University of Enviromental and Life Sciences, Poland
Joanna Grzelak Department of Oral Anatomy, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
Bożena Kurc-Darak Division of Anatomy Department of Morphology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland
Zygmunt Domagała Division of Anatomy Department of Morphology, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/anre-2018-0017

Keywords:

contraceptive pills, PMS, menstruation, pregnancy

Abstract

Oral contraceptive agents are currently the most popular and one of the most effective methods for preventing pregnancy. The data shows that over 300 million women in the world use contraceptive drugs containing synthetic hormones to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Their effects may affect other systems, leading to the occurrence of various problems associated with the use of the drug. The aim of the study is to estimate the frequency of prevalence of subjective effects associated with the use of combined hormonal contraception with a predominance of gestagens by young women Surveys were conducted among female students of Wrocław universities from December 2010 to January 2011. They covered 257 women aged statistically 23.58 (SD=2.95). They were divided into three age classes: 19-22, 23-24, 25- 28. The individual age of menarche and the hormonal type of body were determined. Only persons with a gestagenic or estrogenic type of body were qualified for the study. Results: 64.6% of all respondents declared the use of hormonal contraception. Combined agents with a predominance of gestagens constituted 87% in this group. Their use brings both positive (90%) and negative (65%) aspects. The most common positive effects include high contraceptive effectiveness, regulation of menstruation and minimisation of skin problems. The most frequent negative effects include: weight gain, spotting, breast swelling and decreased libido. Surprisingly, the study did not show any correlation between the hormonal type and the occurrence of side effects. There was no significant statistical relationship between the type of hormonal contraception used and the hormonal type.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bird JL, Oinonen KA, Mazmanian D. 2015. Gonadal Hormones are Associated with Body Shape and Symptoms of Disordered Page 2 of 5 Eating in Women. Obes Control Ther 2:1-5.
View in Google Scholar

Bishop MF. 2011. Birth control. In: JH Marsh, editor. The Canadian Encyclopaedia. Toronto, ON: Historica-Dominion.
View in Google Scholar

Burkman RT. 2002. Clinical pearls: factors affecting reported contraceptive efficacy rates in clinical studies. Int J Fertil Womens Med 47:153-61.
View in Google Scholar

Clark LR, Barnes-Harper KT, Ginsburg KR, Holmes WC, Schwarz DF. 2006. Menstrual irregularity from hormonal contraception: a cause of reproductive health concerns in minority adolescent young women. Contraception 74:214-9.
View in Google Scholar

Condom JT, Need JA, Fitzsimmons D, Lucy S. 1995. University students’ subjective experiences of oral contraceptive use. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 16:37-43.
View in Google Scholar

De Seta F, Restiano S, De Santo D, Stabile G, Banco R, Busetti M, Barbati G, Guaschino S. 2012. Effects of hormonal contraception on vaginal flora. Contraception 86:526-9.
View in Google Scholar

Dinger J, Minh TD, Buttmann N, Bardenheuer K. 2011. Effectiveness of oral contraceptive pills in a large U.S. cohort comparing progestogen and regimen. Obstet Gynecol 117:33-40.
View in Google Scholar

Finley H. 2012. An early (1964) birth control pill (The Pill): Enovid-E (in a package labeled „Physician’s professional sample”), U.S.A. Washington, DC: The Museum of Menstruation and Women’s Health [pdf]. Avaliable at: www.mum.org/enovid-e-htm [Accessed 2012 Nov 13]/
View in Google Scholar

Freeman EW, Halbreich U, Grubb GS, Rapkin AJ, Skouby SO, Smith L, Mirkin S, Constantine GD. 2012. An overview of four studies of a continuous oral contraceptive (levonorgestrel 90 mcg/ethinyl estradiol 20 mcg) on premenstrual dysphoric disorder and premenstrual syndrome. Contraception 85:437-45.
View in Google Scholar

Gierisch JM, Coeytaux RR, Urrutia RP, Havrilesky LJ, Moorman P, Lowery WJ et al. 2013. Oral contraceptive use and risk of breast, cervical, colorectal, and endometrial cancers: A systematic review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 22:1931-43.
View in Google Scholar

Glasier A. 2006. Combined hormonal contraception. Medicine 34:1-5.
View in Google Scholar

Gosavi A, Ma Y, Wong H, Singh K. 2016. Knowledge and factors determining choice of contraception among Singaporean women. Singapore Med J 57:610-5.
View in Google Scholar

Greco T, Graham CA, Bancroft J, Tanner A, Doll HA. 2007. The effects of oral contraceptives on androgen levels and their relevance to premenstrual mood and sexual interest: a comparison of two triphasic formulations containing norgestimate and either 35 or 25 microg of ethinyl estradiol. Contraception 76:8-17.
View in Google Scholar

Grimbizis GF. Tarlatzis BC. 2010. The use of hormonal contraception and its protective role against endometrial and ovarian cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obs Gyn 24:29-38.
View in Google Scholar

GUS. 2009. Stan zdrowia [pdf]. Warszawa. Avaliable at: http://stat.gov.pl/cps/rde/xbcr/gus/ZO_stan_zdrowia_2009.pdf [Accessed 2017 Aug 12].
View in Google Scholar

Hubacher D, Raymond ER, Beksinska M, Delany-Moretlwe S, Smit J, Hylton-Kong T, Moench TR. 2008. Hormonal contraception and the risk of STI acquisition: results of a feasibility study to plan a future randomized trial, Contraception 77:366-70.
View in Google Scholar

Jernström H, Olsson H. 1997. Breast size in relation to endogenous hormone levels, body constitution, and oral contraceptive use in healthy nulligravid women aged 19-25 years. Am J Epidemiol 145:571-80.
View in Google Scholar

Lidegaard Ø. 2016. The risk of arterial thrombosis increases with the use of combined oral contraceptives. Evid Based Med 21:38. Epub 2015 Nov 16.
View in Google Scholar

Meisenbacher K. 2008. Antykoncepcja. Wrocław: MedPharm Polska.
View in Google Scholar

Mengesha B, Griffin L, Nagle A, Kiley J. 2016. Assessment of contraceptive needs in women undergoing bariatric surgery. Contraception 94 :74-7.
View in Google Scholar

Newton V.L., Hoggart L. 2015. Hormonal contraception and regulation of menstruation: a study of young women’s attitudes towards ‘having period’. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 41:210-5.
View in Google Scholar

Salehi R, Motemavele M, Goldust M. 2013. Risk factors of coronary artery disease in women. Pak J Biol Sci 16:195-7.
View in Google Scholar

Sweeney LA, Molloy GJ, Byrne M, Murphy AW, Morgan K, Hughes CM et al. 2015. A Qualitative Study of Prescription Contraception Use: The Perspectives of Users, General Practitioners and Pharmacists. PLoS One 3:10(12):e0144074.
View in Google Scholar

Tehard B, Clavel-Chapelon F. 2006. Several anthropometric measurements and breast cancer risk: results of the E3N cohort study. Int J Obes (Lond) 30:156-63.
View in Google Scholar

United Nations, 2011. Departament of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World contraceptive use 2011. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/contraceptive2011/contraceptive2011.htm [Accessed January 16, 2012].
View in Google Scholar

Xie J, Eliassen AH, Xu X, Matthews CE, Hankinson SE, Ziegler RG et al. 2012. Body size in relation to urinary estrogens and estrogen metabolites (EM) among premenopausal women during the luteal phase. Horm Cancer 3:249-60.
View in Google Scholar

Zagami SE, Golmakani N, Shandiz FH, Saki A. 2013. Evaluating the Relationship between Body Size and Body Shape with the Risk of Breast Cancer. Oman Med J 28:389-94.
View in Google Scholar