Comparing Norplant and Depo-Provera.
Comparing Norplant and Depo-Provera
In a study done in Singapore in 1988, 100 present and past users of Norplant and 100 present and past users of Depo Provera (an injectable in·ject·a·ble
Capable of being injected. Used of a drug.
A drug or medicine that can be injected. progestin progestin /pro·ges·tin/ (-jes´tin) progestational agent.
1. A natural or synthetic progestational substance that mimics some or all of the actions of progesterone. given every three months that thickens cervical mucus cervical mucus Gynecology A viscous fluid that plugs the cervical os, and prevents sperm and bacteria from entering the uterus; at midcycle, under estrogenic influence, CM becomes thin, watery, and stringy, and allows free passage of sperm into the uterus. and often suppresses ovulation ovulation /ovu·la·tion/ (ov?u-la´shun) the discharge of a secondary oocyte from a graafian follicle.ov´ulatory
The discharge of an ovum from the ovary. ) were questioned about these methods of birth control. 69% of current Norplant users said they would continue using it, while only 31% of current DP users wanted to continue. 60% of current DP users said they intended to switch to Norplant in the future for the convenience; none of the Norplant users wanted to switch.
The most important disadvantage of both methods was reported to be increased menstrual spotting and bleeding. 56% of past users of Norplant said they intended to use the implant again in the future, while only 20% of DP users would do so again--and 56% of them intended to consider Norplant.
The researchers concluded that women favored Norplant over Depo Provera, mainly because of its longer duration of action.
--Reported in Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights Reproductive rights or procreative liberty is what supporters view as human rights in areas of sexual reproduction. Advocates of reproductive rights support the right to control one's reproductive functions, such as the rights to reproduce (such as opposition to forced Newsletter #31, Oct-Dec 1989, p.48.