ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2026
Prevalence, patterns and motives for hormonal contraceptive use among German servicewomen: results from a nationwide survey.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hormonal contraceptive (HC) use is common among servicewomen and has been discussed in relation to health, performance, and operational readiness. No systematic data exist on HC prevalence among German servicewomen. This study analyzes contraceptive practices and motivations for contraceptive choice in German servicewomen. A nationwide, cross-sectional online survey was conducted among female members of the German Armed Forces. Recruitment occurred via military institutions and a digital flyer. The anonymous questionnaire (40 items, 10-15 min) assessed demographic characteristics and contraceptive use. Data were cleaned and analyzed using R. Inferential analyses comprised pairwise adjacent comparisons using Fisher's exact test with Holm correction. A total of 2818 servicewomen completed the survey (response rate 11.2%; mean age 33.9 years). Overall, 38.1% reported current HC use. Combined oral contraceptive pills (COCP) were the most common method (18.5%), followed by hormonal intrauterine devices (8.9%) and progestin-only pills (8.4%). HC use declined with increasing age, primarily due to decreasing pill use, although 8% of women ≥40 years still reported COCP use. Systemic long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) (implants and injections) were virtually absent. Contraceptive use differed significantly across age- and length-of-service categories, but not BMI categories. Pregnancy prevention was the primary reason for HC use (82%), followed by management of menstrual pain and bleeding. A small proportion reported HC use for performance-related cycle control (13%) or masking of amenorrhea (2%). Deployment-related switching to HC was uncommon. HC use among German servicewomen appears low compared with reports from British and U.S. militaries. Given evidence linking certain systemic LARC formulations to potential effects on bone metabolism, the low prevalence warrants further investigation in the context on musculoskeletal health and injury risk in a population exposed to high mechanical loading. Preventive efforts in the German military should consider a broader range of modifiable risk factors, including nutrition and training load. The findings may indicate potential gaps in military-specific education and counseling regarding informed contraceptive choice, occupational implications of different methods, and age-related hormonal management. The response rate and the limited scope of certain questionnaire items should be considered when interpreting the results.
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.