ArticleRevista de saude publica2016
Use of and access to oral and injectable contraceptives in Brazil.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Knowledge and attitude of deaf women in relation to contraceptive methods: A systematic review.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2026Article
- Association Between Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Lipedema: A Cross-Sectional Study With 637 Brazilian Women.Cureus · 2025Article
- Violence against women and its interface with reproductive characteristics: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Oral contraceptive use and its sociocultural determinants in Iranian women: a secondary cross-sectional analysis from the PARS cohort study.Contraception and reproductive medicine · 2025Article
- [Women's health care in the state of São Paulo, Brazil: an evaluation of primary health care services].Cadernos de saude publica · 2025Article
- 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 · 2025Observational
- Socioeconomic inequalities in contraceptive use among Brazilian women: A multilevel analysis stratified by parity.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Article
- Knowledge, Use, and Perception of Brazilian Women about Contraceptive Methods: An Observational Study.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Policies for expanding family planning coverage: lessons from five successful countries.Frontiers in public health · 2024Review
- [Contraceptive mix and factors associated with the type of method used by Brazilian women: a population-based cross-sectional study].Cadernos de saude publica · 2023Article
- Availability of emergency contraception in large Brazilian municipalities: a guaranteed right?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Social inequalities in utilization of a feminist telehealth abortion service in Brazil: A multilevel analysis.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2022Article
- Emerging contaminants in Brazilian aquatic environment: identifying targets of potential concern based on occurrence and ecological risk.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
- Individual and context correlates of the oral pill and condom use among Brazilian female adolescents.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Dating Applications, Sexual Behaviors, and Attitudes of College Students in Brazil's Legal Amazon.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Live Births and Fertility Amid the Zika Epidemic in Brazil.Demography · 2020Article
- Understanding sexual and reproductive health needs of young women living in Zika affected regions: a qualitative study in northeastern Brazil.Reproductive health · 2020Article
- Social inequalities in the use of contraceptives in adult women from Southern Brazil.Revista de saude publica · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.