RESUMO

Abstract Objectives: to assess factors associated with the use of long-acting reversible methods (LARC) and women's concerns about them. Methods: this is a cross-sectional study conducted in a digital environment from April to June 2021, with the use of a structured instrument disseminated through social networks. The study included women of reproductive age (18 to 49 years old), who were not pregnant, not hysterectomized, not sterilized and whose partners were not vasectomized. Data were analyzed using logistic and multinomial regression. Results: the study population consisted of 1596 women aged 18 to 49 living in all regions of the country, 22% of whom were using LARC. Aspects associated with LARC use were younger age, having health insurance, being in a relationship and not wanting to get pregnant. Half of LARC users reported having some kind of concern about the method, the most frequent being the risk of becoming pregnant (36.2%). The aspects associated with having concerns about using LARC were the type of method, not being in a relationship and not wanting to get pregnant. Conclusions: LARC users are not a homogeneous group. Current experience of using LARC is lived with concerns, including some about its efficacy.

Resumo Objetivos: determinar os fatores associados ao uso de métodos reversíveis de longa ação (LARC) e às preocupações das usuárias. Métodos: estudo transversal conduzido em ambiente digital de abril a junho de 2021, por meio de instrumento estruturado disseminado por redes sociais. Foram incluídas mulheres em idade reprodutiva (18 a 49 anos de idade), não grávidas, não histerectomizadas, não esterilizadas e cujos parceiros não eram vasectomizados. Os dados foram analisados por meio de regressão logística e multinominal. Resultados: a população do estudo foi constituída por 1596 mulheres de 18 a 49 anos de idade residentes em todas as regiões do país, das quais 22% usavam LARC. Os aspectos associados ao uso de LARC foram a idade mais jovem, ter plano de saúde, estar em um relacionamento e não querer engravidar. Metade das usuárias de LARC relatou ter algum tipo de preocupação com o método, sendo a mais frequente o risco de engravidar (36,2%). Os aspectos associados a ter preocupação com o uso de LARC foram o tipo de método, não estar em um relacionamento e não querer engravidar. Conclusões: observou-se que as usuárias de LARC não são homogêneas entre si e que a experiência com o uso de LARC está permeada por preocupações, inclusive em relação a sua eficácia.

RESUMO

Purpose: To determine the epidemiological profile of women who inserted copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD), subdermal etonogestrel implant (ENG), tubal ligation (TL), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or did not choose a contraceptive method (NCM) in the immediate postpartum period and compare the contraceptive effectiveness of Cu-IUD and DPMA with non-MAC. Methods: We analyzed the epidemiological profile of women who inserted copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD), subdermal etonogestrel implant (ENG), tubal ligation (TL), depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or did not choose a contraceptive method (NCM) in the immediate postpartum. The data was collected by electronic medical records of postpartum women assisted at the University Hospital of São Bernardo do Campo (HMU-SBC) from January 2016 to December 2020. Also, we compared the contraceptive effectiveness of Cu-IUD and DPMA with non-MAC by identifying women who returned for second delivery during the study period and analyzing the contraceptive method chosen in the first hospitalization. Then the pregnancies interval and the sociodemographic characteristics were analyzed according to contraceptive method type. Results: Data from 20,896 women were collected, of which 8,183 (39%) opted for Cu-IUD, 559 (2.5%) DPMA, and 10,989 (52.5%) chose not to use contraception at the time of hospital discharge. When comparing these groups, women in the DPMA were younger (26.5 ± 7.3, p < 0.05), and NCM showed women with a lower number of pregnancies (2.2 ± 1.3, p < 0.05). Subjects in the TL group (4.6%) had the higher number of pregnancies (3.8 ± 1.2, p < 0.05), and ENG group, the highest number of miscarriages (1.6 ± 1.3, p < 0.05). Of those women who returned pregnant, 5.5% belonged to the DPMA group, 6% to the NCM group, and 2.3% to the Cu-IUD. Conclusions: Women who opted for Cu-IUD insertion were younger, had more pregnancies and vaginal delivery when compared to those who did not choose a method. Of those women who returned, the minority opted for Cu-IUD compared to those that opted for DPMA or no method.