Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27982384›Full record

ArticleRevista de saude publica2016

Use of and access to oral and injectable contraceptives in Brazil.

Mareni Rocha Farias, Silvana Nair Leite, Noemia Urruth Leão Tavares, Maria Auxiliadora Oliveira, Paulo Sergio Dourado Arrais, Andréa Dâmaso Bertoldi, Tatiane da Silva Dal Pizzol, Vera Lucia Luiza, Luiz Roberto Ramos, Sotero Serrate Mengue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Revista de saude publica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cardiovascular risk profile according to World Health Organization medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use of women using hormonal contraception in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Quarterly injectable hormonal contraceptive does not increase the activity of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in women without cardiovascular risk factors.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Dating Applications, Sexual Behaviors, and Attitudes of College Students in Brazil's Legal Amazon.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Mareni Rocha FariasDepartamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas. Centro de Ciências da Saúde. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
Silvana Nair LeiteDepartamento de Ciências Farmacêuticas. Centro de Ciências da Saúde. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
Noemia Urruth Leão TavaresDepartamento de Farmácia. Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde. Universidade de Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Maria Auxiliadora OliveiraEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Paulo Sergio Dourado ArraisDepartamento de Farmácia. Faculdade de Farmácia, Odontologia e Enfermagem. Universidade Federal do Ceará. Fortaleza, CE, Brasil.
Andréa Dâmaso BertoldiDepartamento de Medicina Social. Faculdade de Medicina. Universidade Federal de Pelotas. Pelotas, RS, Brasil.
Tatiane da Silva Dal PizzolDepartamento de Produção e Controle de Medicamentos. Faculdade de Farmácia. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.
Vera Lucia LuizaEscola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sérgio Arouca. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Luiz Roberto RamosEscola Paulista de Medicina. Universidade Federal de São Paulo. São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
Sotero Serrate MenguePrograma de Pós-Graduação em Epidemiologia. Faculdade de Medicina. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo analyze the prevalence of current use of oral and injectable contraceptives by Brazilian women, according to demographic and socioeconomic variables and issues related to access to those medicines.

methodsA cross-sectional, population-based analytical study with probability sampling based on data from the Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos (PNAUM - National Survey on Access, Use and Promotion of Rational Use of Medicines), carried out between September 2013 and February 2014 in 20,404 Brazilian urban households. Prevalence was calculated based on reports from non-pregnant women aged 15-49 on the use of oral or injectable contraceptives. The independent variables were gender, age, level of education, socioeconomic class, Brazilian region and marital status. Also analyzed were access, means of payment, sources, and reported medicines. Statistical analyses considered 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) and Pearson Chi-square test to evaluate the statistical significance of differences between groups, considering a 5% significance level.

resultsPrevalence of use was 28.2% for oral contraceptives (OC) and 4.5% for injectable contraceptives (IC). The highest prevalence of oral contraceptives was in the South region (37.5%) and the lowest in the North region (15.7%). For injectable contraceptives there was no difference between regions. Access was higher for oral contraceptive users (90.7%) than injectable contraceptives users (81.2%), as was direct payment (OC 78.1%, IC 58.0%). Users who paid for contraceptives acquired them at retail pharmacies (OC 95.0% and IC 86.6%) and at Farmácia Popular (Popular Pharmacy Program) (OC 4.8% and IC 12.7%). Free of charge contraceptives were mostly obtained from the Brazilian Unified Health System - SUS (OC 86.7%; IC 96.0%). Free samples were reported by 10.4% of users who did not pay for oral contraceptives. Most of paying users did not try to obtain contraceptives from SUS. Monophasic combined oral contraceptives were the most frequently reported (71.6%) and low-level levonorgestrel + ethinylestradiol combination accounted for 38.7% of them. The most frequently reported medicines are included in the Relação Nacional de Medicamentos Essenciais (RENAME - National List of Essential Medicines.

conclusionsMost women aged 15 to 49 who reported using contraceptives had access to the medicine and use monophasic combined oral contraceptives of appropriate efficiency and safety purchased by direct payment, mainly from retail pharmacies. OBJETIVO: Analisar a prevalência do uso atual de contraceptivos orais e injetáveis por mulheres brasileiras, segundo variáveis demográficas, socioeconômicas e aspectos relacionados ao acesso a esses medicamentos. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal, analítico, baseado nos dados da Pesquisa Nacional sobre Acesso, Utilização e Promoção do Uso Racional de Medicamentos (PNAUM), de base populacional e amostra probabilística, realizada entre setembro/2013 e fevereiro/2014, em 20.404 domicílios urbanos brasileiros. A prevalência foi calculada a partir do relato das mulheres de 15 a 49 anos, não grávidas, sobre o uso de contraceptivos orais ou contraceptivos injetáveis. As variáveis independentes foram sexo, idade, escolaridade, nível socioeconômico, região geográfica e situação conjugal. Também foram analisados acesso, fontes de financiamento, fontes de obtenção e medicamentos citados. As análises estatísticas consideraram intervalos de confiança de 95% (IC95%) e teste Qui-quadrado de Pearson para avaliação da significância estatística das diferenças entre os grupos, considerando o nível de significância de 5%. RESULTADOS: A prevalência de uso de contraceptivos orais (CO) foi 28,2% e de contraceptivos injetáveis (CI), 4,5%. A prevalência de contraceptivos orais foi maior no Sul (37,5%) e menor no Norte (15,7%). Para contraceptivos injetáveis não houve diferença entre as regiões. O acesso foi maior para as usuárias de contraceptivos orais (90,7%) do que de contraceptivos injetáveis (81,2%), assim como o pagamento por desembolso direto (CO 78,1%; CI 58,0%). As usuárias que pagaram pelo contraceptivo compraram na farmácia comercial (CO 95,0% e CI 86,6%) e na Farmácia Popular (CO 4,8% e CI 12,7%). A principal fonte de obtenção gratuita foi o SUS (CO 86,7%; CI 96,0%). Amostra grátis foi citada por 10,4% das usuárias que não pagaram pelos contraceptivos orais. A maioria das usuárias que pagaram, não tentou obter no SUS. Contraceptivos orais combinados monofásico foram os mais citados (71,6%) e a combinação levonorgestrel+etinilestradiol de baixa concentração representou 38,7% destes. Os medicamentos mais citados constam na Relação Nacional de medicamentos Essenciais. CONCLUSÕES: A maioria das mulheres entre 15 e 49 anos que referiram usar contraceptivos obteve acesso ao medicamento, usa contraceptivos orais combinados monofásico, de eficácia e segurança adequada, obtido com pagamento do próprio bolso, principalmente, nas farmácias comerciais.

Indexed as

Health SurveysAdolescentAdultAge DistributionBrazilContraception BehaviorContraceptive AgentsContraceptives, OralCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInjectionsMiddle AgedSocioeconomic FactorsUrban PopulationContraceptive AgentsContraceptives, Oral

Identifiers

PMID27982384
PMCPMC5157909

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.