Original Articles

Attitudes Toward Menstrual Suppression Among Cyclic and Continuous Contraceptive Vaginal Ring Users in Kenya

Abstract

Objective: Multipurpose prevention technologies (MPTs) are developmental dual-purpose options that would provide women with a contraceptive as well as a prevention modality aimed at sexually transmitted infections. The contraceptive vaginal ring (CVR) has many properties that makes it an ideal MPT candidate. The objective of this study is to understand women’s attitudes towards menstrual suppression, a potential side effect of using a CVR, and how to address these attitudes for MPT vaginal rings in development.
Materials and methods: We analyzed data derived from a subset of cohort study participants (n=45) in Thika, Kenya between January 2016- December 2018. The primary study enrolled 121 women 18-40 years with bacterial vaginosis and randomized them to cyclic or continuous CVR use for eight months. During the 6-month follow-up, a questionnaire eliciting attitudes towards menstrual suppression was administered. Responses to the menstrual suppression questionnaire between participants in the cyclic and continuous CVR use groups were compared. Likert-scale responses were summed to create a menstrual suppression attitude summary score, and a hierarchical cluster analysis was conducted to identify similarities in response patterns among all participants.
Results: Totally 81.8% of continuous CVR users believed that one was less likely to get pregnant after using hormonal medication to suppress menses, compared to 47.8% of cyclic CVR users (P=0.02), and were more worried it would cause long-term health effects (86.4% vs 60.9%, p = 0.05). The menstrual suppression attitude summary score ranged from 8 to 42, with lower scores indicating negative attitudes. The summary score identified three distinct clusters. When asked if menstrual suppression effects long-term health; 100% of Cluster 3 was worried compared to 80.8% of Cluster 2 and 46.2% of Cluster 1 (p = 0.03). The average summary score among Cluster 3 (Mean = 14.8, SD = 4.6) was lower
(p < 0.001) and women were more worried about discomfort during sex (p=0.05) as well as their sexual partners feeling the ring (p=0.02).
Conclusion: Women are more likely to have negative attitudes if they believe menstrual suppression hinders future reproductive health. Education on cycle control and fertility could mitigate negative attitudes and improve uptake of CVRs.

1. Sully E A, Biddlecome A, Darroch J, Riley T, Ashford L, Lince-Deroche N, Firestein L, Murro R. Adding It Up: Investing in Sexual and Reproductive Health 2019 New York: Guttmacher Institute; 2020 [Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/report/adding-it-up-investing-in-sexual-reproductive-health-2019] (accessed 13 April 2023).
2. Cahill N, Sonneveldt E, Stover J, Weinberger M, Williamson J, Wei C, Brown W, Alkema L. Modern contraceptive use, unmet need, and demand satisfied among women of reproductive age who are married or in a union in the focus countries of the Family Planning 2020 initiative: a systematic analysis using the Family Planning Estimation Tool. Lancet. 2018;391(10123):870-882.
3. UNAIDS. Global AIDS Update: Seizing the Moment UNAIDS2020 [Available from https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/2020_global-aids-report_en.pdf] (accessed 13 April 2023).
4. Crankshaw TL, Smit JA, Beksinska ME. Placing contraception at the centre of the HIV prevention agenda. Afr J AIDS Res. 2016;15(2):157-62.
5. Roumen FJ. Review of the combined contraceptive vaginal ring, NuvaRing. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2008;4(2):441-51.
6. Griffin JB, Ridgeway K, Montgomery E, Torjesen K, Clark R, Peterson J, Baggaley R, van der Straten A. Vaginal ring acceptability and related preferences among women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. PLoS One. 2019;14(11):e0224898.
7. American College of Nurse-Midwives. Menstrual Suppression: Choosing Not to Have Your Period. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012;57(6):645-6.
8. Ferrero S, Abbamonte LH, Giordano M, Alessandri F, Anserini P, Remorgida V, Ragni N. What is the desired menstrual frequency of women without menstruation-related symptoms? Contraception. 2006;73(5):537-41.
9. Jacobson JC, Likis FE, Murphy PA. Extended and continuous combined contraceptive regimens for menstrual suppression. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2012;57(6):585-592.
10. Guthrie KM, Rosen RK, Vargas SE, Getz ML, Dawson L, Guillen M, Ramirez JJ, Baum MM, Vincent KL. User evaluations offer promise for pod-intravaginal ring as a drug delivery platform: A mixed methods study of acceptability and use experiences. PLoS One. 2018 ;13(5):e0197269.
11. Alcaide ML, Rodriguez VJ, Fischl MA, Jones DL, Weiss SM. Addressing intravaginal practices in women with HIV and at-risk for HIV infection, a mixed methods pilot study. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:123-32.
12. Brody C, Berkowitz RL, Chhoun P, Kaplan KC, Tuot S, Yi S. “Feeling clean”: stigma and intravaginal practices among female entertainment workers in Cambodia. BMC Women's Health. 2021;21(1):127.
13. DeMaria AL, Sundstrom B, Meier S, Wiseley A. The myth of menstruation: how menstrual regulation and suppression impact contraceptive choice. BMC Women's Health. 2019;19(1):125.
14. Marrazzo JM, Srinivasan S, Irungu E, Thomas K, Mugo N, Mwaniki P, Kiptinness C, Ngure K, Heller K, Krows M, Garcia KM, Gakuo S, Fiedler T, Fredricks DN. Impact of a contraceptive ring on vaginal bacteria associated with HIV acquisition. 2019 Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), March 2-6, Seattle, WA (poster).[Available from: https://www.croiconference.org/abstract/impact-contraceptive-ring-vaginal-bacteria-associated-hiv-acquisition/]
15. Amsel R, Totten PA, Spiegel CA, Chen KC, Eschenbach D, Holmes KK. Nonspecific vaginitis. Diagnostic criteria and microbial and epidemiologic associations. Am J Med. 1983;74(1):14–22.
16. Nugent RP, Krohn MA, Hillier SL. Reliability of diagnosing bacterial vaginosis is improved by a standardized method of gram stain interpretation. J Clin Microbiol. 1991;29(2):297-301.
17. Moens K, Siegert RJ, Taylor S, Namisango E, Harding R, et al. (2015) Symptom Clusters in People Living with HIV Attending Five Palliative Care Facilities in Two Sub-Saharan African Countries: A Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. PLOS ONE 10(5): e0126554.
18. Guess MJ, Wilson SB. Introduction to hierarchical clustering. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2002;19(2):144-51.
19. Hasson KA. Not a “Real” Period?: Social and Material Constructions of Menstruation. In: Bobel C, Winkler IT, Fahs B, Hasson KA, Kissling EA, Roberts TA, editors. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan Copyright; 2020, p. 763-85.
20. Hilber AM, Francis SC, Chersich M, Scott P, Redmond S, Bender N, et al. Intravaginal practices, vaginal infections and HIV acquisition: systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2010;5(2):e9119.
21. Polis CB, Hussain R, Berry A. There might be blood: a scoping review on women's responses to contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):114.
22. McLellan-Lemal E, Ondeng'e K, Gust DA, Desai M, Otieno FO, Madiega PA, et al. Contraceptive vaginal ring experiences among women and men in Kisumu, Kenya: A qualitative study. Front Womens Health. 2017;2(1).
Files
IssueVol 17, No 3 (September 2023) QRcode
SectionOriginal Articles
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v17i3.13534
Keywords
Contraceptive Vaginal Ring (CVR) Menstrual Suppression HIV Multipurpose Prevention Technologies
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Wilbekin Walker K, Mugo N, Ngure K, Gakuo S, Casmir E, Wiener H, Long D, Shrestha S, Marrazzo J. Attitudes Toward Menstrual Suppression Among Cyclic and Continuous Contraceptive Vaginal Ring Users in Kenya. J Family Reprod Health. 2023;17(3):118-127.