Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T05:10:58.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes towards contraceptive implants and injectables among present and former users in Singapore

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

K. Singh ,
O. A. C. Viegas  and
S. S. Ratnam
K. Singh
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore, National University Hospital, Singapore
O. A. C. Viegas
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore, National University Hospital, Singapore
S. S. Ratnam
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Singapore, National University Hospital, Singapore
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In a comparison of present and past users of contraceptive implants (Norplant) or injectables (DMPA) and discontinuers of Norplant or DMPA, information concerning the women's knowledge and perception of, and attitude to, implants and injectable contraceptives, was studied. The long duration of action (5 years) of implants was perceived positively by all groups as compared to the shorter 3-month duration of injectables, though this was seen as an advantage over the pill. It appears that the Norplant system has potential for wider use in Singapore in the future.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 1 - 11
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berliner, V. R. (1974) U.S. Food and Drug Administration requirements for toxicity testing of contraceptive products. Acta endocr. 75, 240.Google Scholar
Hutchings, J. & Saunders, L. (1985) Assessing the Characteristics of Cost Effectiveness of Contraceptive Methods. Paper 10, Program for the Introduction and Adaption of Contraceptive Technology. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Kols, A., Rinehart, W., Piotrow, P. T., Doucette, M. H. S. L. & Quillin, W. F. (1982) Oral Contraceptives in the 1980s. Population Reports A6, p. 191. Population Information Program, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google ScholarPubMed
Liskin, L. S. & Quillin, W. F. (1983) Long Acting Progestins—Promise and Prospects. Population Reports K2, p. 19. Population Information Program, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Lunis, F., Prihattono, J., Agoestina, T., Affcardi, R. & Sutedi, H. (1983) One year experience with Norplant implants in Indonesia. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 181.Google Scholar
Marangoni, P., Cartagene, S., Alvarado, J., Diaz, J. & Faundes, A. (1983) Norplant implants and the TCu 200 IUD: a comparative study in Ecuador. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, S. J. & Croxatto, H. R. (1983) The development of Norplant implants. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, K., Viegas, O. & Ratnam, S. S. (1986) Norplant: a subdermal contraceptive implant system. Singapore Fam. Physician, 12, 106.Google Scholar
Sivin, I. & Brown, G. F. (1983) The introduction of Norplant implants. Stud. Fam. Plann. 14, 192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tan, H. H. (1988) Singapore 1988. Ministry of Communication and Information, Singapore.Google Scholar
World Health Organization (1985) Facts about an implantable contraceptive. Bull. Wld Hlth Org. 63, 485.Google Scholar