Related Experiment Videos
Contraceptive practice in 209 diabetic women regularly attending a specialized diabetes clinic
A Fontbonne1, A Basdevant, B Faguer
1INSERM Unité de Recherches Statistiques (Unité 21) Villejuif.
In order to determine their contraceptive practice, 209 diabetic women, aged 16-50 years, regularly attending the diabetic clinic of a University Hospital in Paris, France, were interviewed. 134 (64%) were current-users of contraception. Contraceptive use was significantly lower among patients with NIDDM compared to patients with IDDM (46% vs 70%, p less than 0.01). Methods used were: intra-uterine devices (IUD) (32% of users), hormonal compounds (27%, almost exclusively low-dose progestogen only pill), occlusive and natural methods (27%), and tubal ligation (14%). The major gynaecological side-effects were associated with the use of low-dose progestogens (39% with amenorrhoea vs 14% for other methods, p less than 0.01). A subsample (n = 165, age-range 20-44 years) of this diabetic population was compared with a representative sample of 8,899 French women of the same age. The proportion of current-users of contraception in this diabetic population was lower than in the French population (63.5% vs 72.2%, p less than 0.02). The diabetic patients tended to use more efficient methods of contraception (pill, IUD and tubal ligation), but 11% of them used no contraception without a stated reason, compared to 4% of the French population. It is suggested that contraceptive guidance should be reinforced in diabetic women, particularly with NIDDM, in order to promote family planning, since tight glycaemic control before and during pregnancy is now recommended.
In order to determine their contraceptive practice, 209 diabetic women, aged 16-50 years, regularly attending the diabetic clinic of a University Hospital in Paris, France, were interviewed. 134 (64%) were current-users of contraception. Contraceptive use was significantly lower among patients with NIDDM compared to patients with IDDM (46% vs 70%, p less than 0.01). Methods used were: intra-uterine devices (IUD) (32% of users), hormonal compounds (27%, almost exclusively low-dose progestogen only pill), occlusive and natural methods (27%), and tubal ligation (14%). The major gynaecological side-effects were associated with the use of low-dose progestogens (39% with amenorrhoea vs 14% for other methods, p less than 0.01). A subsample (n = 165, age-range 20-44 years) of this diabetic population was compared with a representative sample of 8,899 French women of the same age. The proportion of current-users of contraception in this diabetic population was lower than in the French population (63.5% vs 72.2%, p less than 0.02). The diabetic patients tended to use more efficient methods of contraception (pill, IUD and tubal ligation), but 11% of them used no contraception without a stated reason, compared to 4% of the French population. It is suggested that contraceptive guidance should be reinforced in diabetic women, particularly with NIDDM, in order to promote family planning, since tight glycaemic control before and during pregnancy is now recommended.