[rael-science] Long-acting contraceptives best by far

วันพุธที่ 13 มิถุนายน พ.ศ. 2555

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Raelian Movement
for those who are not afraid of the future : http://www.rael.org   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/340929/title/Long-acting_contraceptives_best_by_far


Long-acting contraceptives best by far
Implants and IUDs outperform the pill and other birth control options
May 23rd, 2012
Long-acting birth control devices are nearly 22 times as reliable as contraceptive pills or other short-acting approaches that need close monitoring, a new study shows. Since about half of all unplanned pregnancies are traceable to failed birth control, switching to a long-term, reversible contraceptive could prevent many accidental pregnancies, researchers say.
“As a doctor, if you had a drug for cancer or hypertension that was 20-fold better than the next drug, you would never write [a prescription] for that other drug,” says study coauthor Jeffrey Peipert, a physician and epidemiologist at Washington University in St. Louis. “We hope that clinicians will re-think what is standard practice — that a young woman comes in and gets pills or condom counseling. We have methods that are much, much better.”
The findings also hint that if cost were not an issue, most women given a choice of common hormone-based contraceptives would prefer the long-acting devices. About 77 percent of the women who volunteered for the new study chose an intrauterine device (IUD) or a small implant placed under the skin while only 20 percent requested shorter-acting options such as the pill, a vaginal ring or a skin patch. Fewer still opted for hormone injections called Depo-Provera. All costs were covered by the study. The findings appear in the May 24 New England Journal of Medicine.
“This study brought home how big a difference there is between effective methods and really effective methods” of contraception, and comes at a time when demand for birth control is growing, says Lawrence Finer, a demographer and public health researcher at the Guttmacher Institute and Columbia University in New York City. The point at which women are getting married and giving birth is getting later, he says. “But the age at first sex hasn’t changed that much. You’ve got a long period where people need contraception.”
The researchers monitored 7,486 girls and women who were given the hormonal contraceptive of their choice. (The researchers didn’t offer barrier devices such as condoms or diaphragms.) During three years of follow-up, there were 156 unintended pregnancies that were attributable to some form of contraceptive failure. The pill/patch/ring group had failure rates that ranged from 4.8 percent after the first year to 9.4 percent after the third year, while the long-term devices and injections showed failure rates of less than 1 percent each year.
Teenagers have a lot to gain from long-acting devices, since their record of adhering to daily or on-the-spot birth control is inconsistent, says James Trussell, an economist and public health researcher at Princeton University. “That’s the wonderful thing about these long-acting methods — the implants and IUDs. There are no adherence problems. We call them ‘fit and forget.’”
But misconceptions about contraceptives’ effectiveness remain, he says. “Plenty of researchers have asked people open-ended questions about which contraceptive is more effective,” he says. “A huge fraction get it wrong.”
Peipert says doubts about safety linger as well, in part due to the Dalkon Shield, an IUD from the 1970s that was linked to pelvic infections and pulled from shelves. IUDs no longer have this flaw, but the incident gave them a bad reputation, he says. “Clinicians steered away from giving an IUD to young women or those who hadn’t yet had children. I don’t think that’s a worry anymore. These methods are very safe.”
access
LOW-RISK, HIGH-RISKThe cumulative percentage of women who became pregnant despite using a contraceptive during a three-year study. Those choosing a long-acting, implantable device or IUD (blue) or regular injections of Depo-Provera (orange) had the lowest rates of contraceptive failure. The highest rates occurred in women choosing birth control pills, skin patch or vaginal ring (green).Winner et al./New England Journal of Medicine 2012



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
new technologies.
 
There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history, 
it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
 
On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies
unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the
myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease,
death and the sweat of labour.
 
Rael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Tell your friends that they can subscribe to this list by sending an email to:
subscribe@rael-science.org
- - -
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
unsubscribe@rael-science.org
- - -

0 ความคิดเห็น:

แสดงความคิดเห็น

Copyright Text

WARNING FROM RAEL: For those who don't use their intelligence at its
full capacity, the label "selected by RAEL" on some articles does not
mean that I agree with their content or support it. "Selected by RAEL"
means that I believe it is important for the people of this planet to
know about what people think or do, even when what they think or do is
completely stupid and against our philosophy. When I selected articles
in the past about stupid Christian fundamentalists in America praying
for rain, I am sure no Rael-Science reader was stupid enough to
believe that I was supporting praying to change the weather. So, when
I select articles which are in favor of drugs, anti-semitic,
anti-Jewish, racist, revisionist, or inciting hatred against any group
or religion, or any other stupid article, it does not mean that I
support them. It just means that it is important for all human beings
to know about them. Common sense, which is usually very good among our
readers, is good enough to understand that. When, like in the recent
articles on drug decriminalization, it is necessary to make it
clearer, I add a comment, which in this case was very clear: I support
decriminalizing all drugs, as it is stupid to throw depressed and sad
people (as only depressed and sad people use drugs) in prison and ruin
their life with a criminal record. That does not mean that there is
any change to the Message which says clearly that we must not use any
drug except for medical purposes. The same applies to the freedom of
expression which must be absolute. That does not mean again of course
that I agree with anti-Jews, antisemites, racists of any kind or
anti-Raelians. But by knowing your enemies or the enemies of your
values, you are better equipped to fight them. With love and respect
of course, and with the wonderful sentence of the French philosopher
Voltaire in mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it".