New contraceptive options for adolescents

Comprehensive Therapy

Volumn 23, Issue 7, 1997, Pages 439-445

  Neal, Wendy ^a   Coupey, Susan M ^a,b  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN; CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT; DESOGESTREL PLUS ETHINYLESTRADIOL; ESTROGEN; ETHINYLESTRADIOL PLUS LEVONORGESTREL; ETHINYLESTRADIOL PLUS NORGESTIMATE; ETHINYLESTRADIOL PLUS NORGESTREL; GESTAGEN; LEVLIN; LEVONORGESTREL; MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE; ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT; POLYURETHAN; PROGESTERONE; SPERMICIDAL AGENT; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT PREGNANCY; CONDOM; CONTRACEPTION; DEEP VEIN THROMBOSIS; DRUG FORMULATION; HUMAN; INTRADERMAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; ORAL CONTRACEPTION; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; REVIEW;

ADOLESCENTS; AGE FACTORS; AMERICAS; BEHAVIOR; CLINIC ACTIVITIES; CONTRACEPTION; CONTRACEPTION RESEARCH; CONTRACEPTIVE METHODS; CONTRACEPTIVE USAGE; COUNSELING; DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; FAMILY PLANNING; METHOD ACCEPTABILITY; NORTH AMERICA; NORTHERN AMERICA; OBSTACLES; ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION; POPULATION; POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS; PROGRAM ACTIVITIES; PROGRAMS; UNITED STATES; USER COMPLIANCE; YOUTH;

ADOLESCENT; ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR; CONDOMS; CONDOMS, FEMALE; CONTRACEPTION; CONTRACEPTION BEHAVIOR; CONTRACEPTIVES, ORAL, HORMONAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 0030808969     PISSN: 00988243     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. Alan Guttmacher Institute. Sex and America's Teenagers. New York, NY; Alan Guttmacher; 1994.
2. Green V, Johnson S, Kaplan D. Predictors of adolescent females' decision making regarding contraceptive usage. Adolescence. 1992;27: 613-632.
3. Brown R, Cromer B, Fischer R. Adolescent sexuality and issues in contraception. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1992;19:177-191.
4. Trussell J, Leveque J, Koenig J, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:494- 503.
5. Mishell D, Barney P, Milgram L, et al. Practice guidelines for OC selection. Dialogues in Contraception. 1996;4:1-15.
6. American Health Consultants. Oral contraceptives rank no. 1 among family planning programs. Contraceptive Technology Update. 1996;17:117-128.
7. Coupey S. New hormonal contraceptive options for adolescents. In: Goldfarb A, ed. Clinical Problems in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall; 1996: 77-88.
8. Speroff L, DeCherney A. Evaluation of a new generation of oral contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:1034-1047.
9. World Health Organization. Venous thromboembolic disease and combined oral contraceptives: results of international multicenter case-control study. Lancet. 1995;346:1575- 1582.
10. Webb A, Russell J, Elstein M. Comparison of yuzpe regimen, danzol, and mifepristone (RU486) in oral postcoital contraception. BMJ 1992;305:927-931.
11. Gold M, Schein A, Coupey S. Emergency contraception: a national survey of adolescent health experts. Family Planning Perspectives. 1997;29:15-19,24.
12. Cromer B, Smith R, Blair J, et al. A prospective study of adolescents who chose among levonorgestrel implant (Norplant®), medroxyprogesterone acetate (Depo-Provera®), or the combined oral contraceptive pill as contraception. Pediatrics. 1994;94:687-694.
13. Polaneczky M, Slap G, Forke C, et al. The use of levonorgestrel implants (Norplant®) for contraception in adolescent mothers. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1201-1206.
14. Cundy T, Evans M, Roberts H, et al. Bone density in women receiving depot medroxyprogesterone acetate for contraception. BMJ 1991;303: 13-16.
15. Gold M. Contraception update: implantable and injectable methods. Pediatric Ann. 1995;24: 203-207.
16. American Health Consultants. Review of com pany data shows Avanti® breaks less often than latex; and new barrier methods give users more options. Contraceptive Technology Update. 1996;17:37-52.
17. Rosenberg M, Waugh M, Solomon H, et al. The male polyurethane condom: a review of current knowledge. Contraception. 1996;53:141-146.
18. Farr G, Gabelnick H, Sturgen K, et al. Contraceptive efficacy and acceptability of the female condom. Am J Public Health. 1994;84:1960- 1964.
19. Alexander N. Future contraceptives. Scientific American. 1995;273:136-141.
20. Mauck C, Glover L, Miller E, et al. Lea's Shield®: a study of the safety and efficacy of a new vaginal barrier contraceptive used with and without spermicide. Contraception. 1996;53:329-335.
21. Shihata A, Gollub E. Acceptability of a new intravaginal barrier contraceptive Device (FEM- CAP®). Contraception. 1992;46:511-519.
22. Psychoyos A, Creatsas G, Hassan E, et al. Spermicidal and antiviral properties of cholic acid: contraceptive efficacy of a new vaginal sponge (Protectaid®) containing sodium cholate. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:866-869.
23. Bahamondes L, Marchi N, Cristofoletti M, et al. Uniject® as a delivery system for the once-a- month injectable contraceptive Cyclofem® in Brazil. Contraception. 1996;53:115-119.