Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Barrier Methods”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Barrier methods of contraception and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

This North Carolina-based case-control study examined risk factors for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). Cases were 103 women with biopsy-confirmed CIN II or III who were recruited from a referral dysplasia clinic. Controls were 258 family practice patients with normal cervical cytology. All subjects were interviewed regarding their sexual and reproductive history, Pap smear screening, active and passive cigarette exposures, and contraceptive use patterns. When compared with controls, cases were half as likely to have ever used barrier methods of contraception; the adjusted odds ratio was 0.5 (95% CI 0.2-0.9). The risk of CIN II/III decreased further with increasing years of barrier method use. Recency, latency, and age at first barrier method use were all associated with a reduced risk of CIN. Men and women should carefully consider the range of benefits of barrier method use as a means to reduce their risk of unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and cervical neoplasia.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Barrier methods of contraception: a reappraisal.

In the last two years, there has been a gradual reawakening of interest in barrier methods and an increase in their usage by both men and women. This is in large part due to concern about the sometimes serious side effects reported for other contraceptive methods. The return to these techniques is particularly important, given the current epidemics of teenage pregnancy and veneral disease. One of the major problems in relation to barrier methods today is the accurate determination of their efficacy. There are very limited data with statistical validity available to judge the exact rate of effectiveness one might obtain using one of these techniques. The National Survey of Family Growth, conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, showed a failure rate per 100 women of 16.7 for foam, cream or jelly and 15.9 for diaphragms (22). There is a great need for new and improved barrier methods of contraception. Numerous clinical studies are being set up to test spermicidal agents and vaginal sponges for the female, as well as such things as disposable condoms for males.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1989

The vaginal contraceptive diaphragm and the condom--a reevaluation and comparison of two barrier methods with the rhythm method.

The use-effectiveness and continuation rates of two barrier methods of contraception, the diaphragm and condom, were studied during a two-year follow-up in a group of 85 and 98 women, respectively. All were highly motivated. Results were compared to a group of 64 women using the periodic abstinence or rhythm method, i.e. not using any contraceptive. The patients selected the method of contraception they preferred and were instructed in their proper use. Results showed good continuation rates in the groups using a diaphragm and the condom for 2 years, for a total follow-up of 5570 cycles. Pregnancy rate after 24 months of use, as calculated by Pearl's formula, was 2.48 for the diaphragm, 3.21 for the condom, and 5.19 in the rhythm group. No serious side effects or complications occurred in either group. The study demonstrated a fair acceptability and use-effectiveness for barrier contraceptive. We suggest that these harmless and complication-free methods may still be reasonable alternatives for the "modern" methods, the pill and the IUD.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

The female condom. A pilot study of the acceptability of a new female barrier method.

The best available prevention against sexually transmitted diseases is limited to a consistent and correct use of a condom by the male. A new barrier method has been developed for the female. As it can be inserted into the vagina before sexual intercourse starts, and as it covers the entrance of the vagina, the opening of the urethra and the root of the penis, it is presumed to give a high degree of protection against sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. The preliminary results concerning acceptability are promising, and further investigations concerning acceptability and efficacy are in progress or completed in several countries. The method should be regarded as one aspect in the pattern of protection, particularly suitable for females with sexual risk behavior.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Barrier methods: renewed interest, but more research needed.

At a recent major international workshop held in Guatemala, the state of the art of barrier contraception was examined. While there are promising leads to new methods, none is likely to be available in the near future.

Contraceptive Devices↗
PubMed1979

Barrier methods.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Contraceptive Devices↗
PubMed1991

Barrier contraceptive methods and preeclampsia.

Recent investigations have suggested that women who use barrier methods of contraception may be at increased risk for preeclampsia. We used data from two prospective pregnancy studies to examine the relationship between contraceptive use before conception and preeclampsia. The preeclampsia rates among women using barrier contraceptives were not significantly higher than the rates in women using nonbarrier contraceptives or the rates in women using no contraceptives in either study. The odds ratios for preeclampsia in barrier contraceptive users in the two studies were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [Cl], 0.71 to 1.12) and 0.85 (95% Cl, 0.49 to 1.45) compared with nonbarrier contraceptive users and 0.91 (95% Cl, 0.71 to 1.16) and 0.81 (95% Cl, 0.48 to 1.35) compared with women using no contraceptives. After adjusting for other risk factors, we found no association between preeclampsia and barrier contraceptive use. Additional studies are needed to resolve this issue; however, we would recommend that women not be advised to avoid barrier contraceptives unless more data linking their use to preeclampsia appear.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

[Evaluation of cutaneous risks of the Pill].

Despite the fact that about 150 millions women must have taken hormonal contraceptives all over the world since the 1960s, the risk/benefit ratio of this birth control method has yet not been reliably assessed. The side effects of the pill on the skin do not pertain, in general, to those (like thrombo-embolism or, perhaps, breast cancer) which might be life-threatening, but they are probably more frequent and may have a potential to alter the quality of life of women who use it. The aim of this paper is to review the dermatological effects of hormonal contraceptives from the point of view of everyday prescribing, with the emphasis on the quality of life of patients. The reported side effects of the pill are therefore classified according to their real or probable frequency, not to their severity or the theoretical importance of their mechanisms. As it would be unwise to speak of the risks without consideration for the benefits, an attempt is made to compare the dermatological safety profile of oral contraceptives to that of other birth control methods (barrier contraceptive methods, intrauterine devices, etc.) on the one hand; on the other hand, one insists upon the fact that the pill in itself may have health benefits, general (reduction in the incidence of some cancers) or dermatological (e. g. an effect on acne).

Adult↗
PubMed1977

Penetration of some O-and/or N-methylated norepinephrine derivatives through the rat blood brain barrier.

Methods for the determination of a number of O and/or N-methylated derivatives of norepinephrine were developed. The IP injection of these compounds into rats shows quick absorption and short half-lives in plasma, liver and brain. Most compounds do not cross the Blood-Brain-Barrier (BBB) due to low lipid solubility. However, lipid solubility is not a sole determinant. Compounds which have at least one of the 2 phenolic hydroxyl groups methylated and possess a tertiary amino group do cross the BBB readily.

Animals↗
PubMed1990

Pelvic inflammatory disease: the influence of contraceptive, sexual, and social life events.

In order to determine associations between pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and contraceptive, sexual, and social life events, 620 Danish women aged 15-54 were invited to participate in an in-depth interview. Of 585 participating women, 459 were consecutive gynecological in- or outpatients, and 126 were randomly selected from visitors in general practice. Data were analyzed by multivariate test statistics. The mean number of PIDs thereby retrospectively assessed was 1.0. Two-thirds had never had PID, one third had had on average 3 PIDs. The sexual parameter which had the highest predictive value for later PID was the coital debut. Women with coital debut before the 16th year had double the number of PIDs, as women with sexual debut at age 18 or later. Likewise, the mean coital frequency was positively correlated to the number of PIDs. The number of sexual partners, on the other hand, was merely a risk-indicator without a direct influence on PID. Women who used barrier methods (condom and/or diaphragm) for 2 years or more had 23% fewer PIDs than women who had used barrier methods for less than two years. The small number of PIDs among women at high socioeconomic levels could be explained alone by a later coital debut and longer use of barrier methods than that among women at low socioeconomic levels.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1991

Barrier versus oral contraceptive use: a study of female college students.

Although they provide birth control and are easier to use, oral contraceptives (OCPs) are not the preferred approach to preventing sexually transmitted disease (STD). Do the knowledge, attitudes, and experiences of oral contraceptive users place them at greater risk for STDs than those who employ barrier methods? This study examined differences between sexually active female college students (ie, those who reported ever having had vaginal intercourse) who used OCPs and those who employed barrier methods of contraception at the time of their most recent intercourse. The authors analyzed HIV- and other STD-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors from three consecutive annual health surveys of young women about to begin their first year of college. Findings showed barrier and OCP users to be comparable in knowledge about the effectiveness of various contraceptive methods in protecting them against STDs, perceived personal susceptibility to HIV, and experiences with alcohol before sexual intercourse. Oral contraceptive users, compared with those in the group who used barrier methods, reported a greater number of recent partners (p less than .03) and greater perceived vulnerability to STDs (p less than .03). Student healthcare providers must develop creative educational strategies to encourage simultaneous use of both oral contraceptives and barrier methods to protect students against STDs and pregnancy.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

Chlamydia trachomatis and oral contraceptive use: a quantitative review.

OBJECTIVES: Chlamydia trachomatis is now recognised as a major sexually transmitted disease; oral contraceptive use is rapidly increasing particularly in developing countries. There are thus important public health implications of the many reports that isolation of C trachomatis is more frequent among users of oral contraceptives. The aim of this analysis was to assess the strength and consistency of this association by summarising published studies between 1972 and 1990. DESIGN: Studies identified were grouped according to whether they were prospective or case-control studies. Data were extracted and pooled estimates of the unadjusted odds ratios were made for all studies, as well as for sub-groups defined by an index of study quality, background prevalence of C trachomatis, and the contraceptive comparison being made. LOCATION: Studies in the analysis were mainly conducted in Europe and North America; the meta-analysis was done at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. RESULTS: The pooled estimated unadjusted odds ratio for 29 case-control studies examined was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.77-2.11), indicating an almost twofold increased risk of chlamydial infection for oral contraceptive users. Neither study quality nor prevalence of C trachomatis modified this risk. When compared to the use of barrier contraceptives, however, the risk of infection for women using oral contraceptives increased to 2.91 (95% CI, 1.86-4.55). The pooled estimated protective effect of barrier methods in these studies was 0.34 (95% CI, 0.22-0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Cross-study comparisons of the relationship between oral contraceptive use and chlamydial infection are limited by the design and analysis of many component studies which did not control for confounding factors such as sexual behaviour and age. The almost twofold risk of increased chlamydial infection for oral contraceptive users, supported by the findings of two prospective studies, however, points to the importance of considering the risks and benefits of oral contraceptive use in women who are likely to be exposed to C trachomatis and other STDs. The protective effect of barrier methods emphasizes the continued need for promoting barrier methods of contraception.

Case-Control Studies↗
PubMed1975

Prevalence of gonorrhoea among women using various methods of contraception.

Among 2,005 women attending a contraceptive clinic 9-3 per cent. were found to have gonorrhoea. When these women were classified according to the method of contraception used at the time of their initial visit to the clinic, the following prevalence of gonorrhoea was observed: oral contraceptives 11-5 per cent., intrauterine contraceptive devices 9-9 per cent., barrier methods (condom-diaphragm-foam) 4-2 per cent. These differences are statistically significant. The authors suggest that the additional protective advantage of barrier methods should be considered when the physician and patient are selecting appropriate methods of contraception.

Adult↗
PubMed1992

The cervical cap.

The Prentif cavity rim (PCR) cervical cap offers American women a barrier method alternative that is safe, effective, and convenient. Despite its many advantages and benefits, disadvantages have been documented. These include limited availability and side effects, such as cap dislodgement, partner discomfort, and bad odor of the cervical cap. However, many women decide the benefits and advantages associated with the PCR cervical cap outweigh the risks and possible side effects, making it an appealing alternative.

Adult↗