Your search found 2 Results
Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008 Sep; 112(3):572-8.OBJECTIVE: To estimate how well a convenience sample of women from the general population could self-screen for contraindications to combined oral contraceptives using a medical checklist. METHODS: Women 18-49 years old (N=1,271) were recruited at two shopping malls and a flea market in El Paso, Texas, and asked first whether they thought birth control pills were medically safe for them. They then used a checklist to determine the presence of level 3 or 4 contraindications to combined oral contraceptives according to the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria. The women then were interviewed by a blinded nurse practitioner, who also measured blood pressure. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the unaided self-screen to detect true contraindications was 56.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 51.7-60.6%), and specificity was 57.6% (95% CI 54.0-61.1%). The sensitivity of the checklist to detect true contraindications was 83.2% (95% CI 79.5-86.3%), and specificity was 88.8% (95% CI 86.3-90.9%). Using the checklist, 6.6% (95% CI 5.2-8.0%) of women incorrectly thought they were eligible for use when, in fact, they were contraindicated, largely because of unrecognized hypertension. Seven percent (95% CI 5.4-8.2%) of women incorrectly thought they were contraindicated when they truly were not, primarily because of misclassification of migraine headaches. In regression analysis, younger women, more educated women, and Spanish speakers were significantly more likely to correctly self-screen (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Self-screening for contraindications to oral contraceptives using a medical checklist is relatively accurate. Unaided screening is inaccurate and reflects common misperceptions about the safety of oral contraceptives. Over-the-counter provision of this method likely would be safe, especially for younger women and if independent blood pressure screening were encouraged.
[The practice guideline 'Hormonal contraception' (second revision) from the Dutch College of General Practitioners; a response from the perspective of obstetrics and gynecology] De standaard 'Hormonale anticonceptie' (tweede herziening) van het Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap; reactie vanuit de verloskunde-gynaecologie.
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. 2004 Jun 26; 148(26):1274-1275.The Dutch College of General Practitioners' (NHG) guideline on hormonal contraception does not follow the WHO criteria for the use of oral contraceptives in contrast to the guideline of the Dutch Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Contrary to the WHO criteria, the NHG guideline considers a blood-pressure measurement before starting with an oral contraceptive to be unnecessary. It also considers no form of migraine to be contraindication for oral contraceptives. The NHG guideline further disclaims the (slightly) increased risk of developing breast cancer in women using oral contraceptives. It advises initiation of oral-contraceptive use two weeks postpartum in non-breast-feeding women and six weeks postpartum in breastfeeding women, instead of the three weeks and six months, respectively, indicated in the WHO guideline. Lastly, the NHG guideline is too optimistic as to the reliability of oral-contraceptive use, as no distinction is made between efficacy and effectiveness. Such discrepancies between two Dutch guidelines can be detrimental to women's health care. The WHO criteria for contraceptive use may be a valuable tool to overcome differences of opinion to as to achieve a badly needed full consensus. (author's)