IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v284y2021ics0277953621005797.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception in Western countries: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Le Guen, Mireille
  • Schantz, Clémence
  • Régnier-Loilier, Arnaud
  • de La Rochebrochard, Elise

Abstract

Over the past decade, women in Western countries have taken to various social media platforms to share their dissatisfactory experiences with hormonal contraception, which may be pills, patches, rings, injectables, implants or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). These online testimonials have been denounced as spreading “hormonophobia”, i.e. an excessive fear of hormones based on irrational causes such as an overestimation of health risks associated with their use, that was already aroused by the recurring media controversies over hormonal contraception. In order to move toward a reproductive justice framework, we propose to study the arguments that women and men (as partners of female users) recently put forward against hormonal contraception to see whether they are related to hormonophobia. The aim of this article is to conduct a systematic review of the recent scientific literature in order to construct an evidence-based typology of reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception, in a continuum perspective from complaints to choosing not to use it, cited by women and men in Western countries in a recent time. The published literature was systematically searched using PubMed and the database from the French National Institute for Demographic Studies (Ined). A total of 42 articles were included for full-text analysis. Eight main categories emerged as reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception: problems related to physical side effects; altered mental health; negative impact on sexuality; concerns about future fertility; invocation of nature; concerns about menstruation; fears and anxiety; and the delegitimization of the side effects of hormonal contraceptives. Thus, arguments against hormonal contraception appeared complex and multifactorial. Future research should examine the provider-patient relationship, the gender bias of hormonal contraception and demands for naturalness in order to understand how birth control could better meet the needs and expectations of women and men in Western countries today.

Suggested Citation

  • Le Guen, Mireille & Schantz, Clémence & Régnier-Loilier, Arnaud & de La Rochebrochard, Elise, 2021. "Reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception in Western countries: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 284(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:284:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005797
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621005797
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114247?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kimport, Katrina, 2018. "Talking about male body-based contraceptives: The counseling visit and the feminization of contraception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 44-50.
    2. Hans-Peter Kohler, 1997. "Learning in social networks and contraceptive choice," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 34(3), pages 369-383, August.
    3. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    4. Sudhir Rama Murthy & Monto Mani, 2013. "Discerning Rejection of Technology," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, April.
    5. Gunson, Jessica Shipman, 2010. ""More natural but less normal": Reconsidering medicalisation and agency through women's accounts of menstrual suppression," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1324-1331, October.
    6. Krystale Littlejohn, 2012. "Hormonal Contraceptive Use and Discontinuation Because of Dissatisfaction: Differences by Race and Education," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 49(4), pages 1433-1452, November.
    7. Stevens, Lindsay M., 2018. "“We have to be mythbusters”: Clinician attitudes about the legitimacy of patient concerns and dissatisfaction with contraception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 145-152.
    8. Watkins, E.S., 2012. "How Pill became a lifestyle drug: The pharmaceutical industry and birth control in the United States since 1960," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(8), pages 1462-1472.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schneider-Kamp, Anna & Takhar, Jennifer, 2023. "Interrogating the pill: Rising distrust and the reshaping of health risk perceptions in the social media age," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 331(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bertotti, Andrea M. & Mann, Emily S. & Miner, Skye A., 2021. "Efficacy as safety: Dominant cultural assumptions and the assessment of contraceptive risk," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    2. Stevens, Lindsay M., 2018. "“We have to be mythbusters”: Clinician attitudes about the legitimacy of patient concerns and dissatisfaction with contraception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 145-152.
    3. Kissling, Alexandra, 2022. "“Thinking with my dad brain, not my man brain”: Understanding Men's and Women's sterilization risk narratives," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    4. Dalessandro, Cristen & Thorpe, Rachael & Sanders, Jessica, 2021. "“I talked to a couple of friends that had it”: Informal feminized health networks and contraceptive method choices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    5. Manzer, Jamie L. & Bell, Ann V., 2022. "The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    6. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    7. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    8. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    9. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    10. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    11. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    12. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    13. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    14. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    15. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    16. Ding Zhu & Mindan Wu & Yuan Cao & Shihua Lin & Nanxia Xuan & Chen Zhu & Wen Li & Huahao Shen, 2018. "Heated humidification did not improve compliance of positive airway pressure and subjective daytime sleepiness in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-16, December.
    17. Pelai, Ricardo & Hagerman, Shannon M. & Kozak, Robert, 2020. "Biotechnologies in agriculture and forestry: Governance insights from a comparative systematic review of barriers and recommendations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    18. Wesam Salah Alaloul & Muhammad Altaf & Muhammad Ali Musarat & Muhammad Faisal Javed & Amir Mosavi, 2021. "Systematic Review of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis for Pavement and a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-38, April.
    19. Claudia Peters & Agnessa Kozak & Albert Nienhaus & Anja Schablon, 2020. "Risk of Occupational Latent Tuberculosis Infection among Health Personnel Measured by Interferon-Gamma Release Assays in Low Incidence Countries—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Sehee Kim & Mihyeon Park & Sukhee Ahn, 2022. "The Impact of Antepartum Depression and Postpartum Depression on Exclusive Breastfeeding: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 31(5), pages 866-880, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:284:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621005797. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.