You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 149 No. 9, September 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ARTICLE
 This Article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Outcomes of adolescents using levonorgestrel implants vs oral contraceptives or other contraceptive methods

L. M. Dinerman, M. D. Wilson, A. K. Duggan and A. Joffe
Department of Pediatrics, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Md, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes among adolescents who use levonorgestrel implants, oral contraceptives, or other methods of birth control. DESIGN: Prospective, longitudinal study of 166 females who were followed up for 6 months. Fifty-four used implants, 64 used oral contraceptives, and 48 used condoms alone or with spermicide, or no contraceptive. Outcomes were measured by patient interview and medical chart review. SETTING: Inner-city, hospital-based adolescent and teenaged mother and baby clinic between April 1, 1992, and May 31, 1993. PARTICIPANTS: Sexually active 12- to 18-year-old females at least 1 year postmenarche who had no contraindications to use of hormonal contraceptives. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sexual activity, pregnancy rates, condom use, incidence of sexually transmitted disease, patient satisfaction continuation rates, and side effects. RESULTS: Despite similar reports of sexual activity, one subject who used the implant (2%) vs 13 subjects who used oral contraceptives (20%), and eight subjects who used other methods (17%) became pregnant (chi 2, P < .50). Condom use did not differ among groups (chi 2, P > .60). Overall, 30% of subjects contracted a new sexually transmitted disease; rates did not differ by method (chi 2, P = .92). Implant users were more likely than oral contraceptive users to continue their method (87% vs 50%; chi 2, P < .001) despite similar satisfaction scores (one-way analysis of variance, P = .52). Implant users were more likely to experience irregular menses, mood swings, acne, and hair loss (chi 2, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: In this population, the levonorgestrel implant is an effective method of pregnancy prevention and is associated with high satisfaction and continuation rates at 6 months. Implant users are not at greater risk than others for sexually transmitted disease. Health care providers should continue to stress the use of barrier methods to all sexually active adolescents.

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Effects of Injectable or Implantable Progestin-Only Contraceptives on Insulin-Glucose Metabolism and Diabetes Risk
Kahn et al.
Diabetes Care 2003;26:216-225.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Depot Medroxyprogesterone Acetate Use in Inner-city, Minority Adolescents: Continuation Rates and Characteristics of Long-term Users
Lim et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999;153:1068-1072.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Correlates and Consequences of Early Removal of Levonorgestrel Implants Among Teenaged Mothers
Stevens-Simon and Kelly
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1998;152:893-898.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1995 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.