A systematic review exploring the contraception values and preferences of sex workers, transmasculine individuals, people who inject drugs, and those living in humanitarian contexts

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Antonella F Lavelanet, World Health Organization; Jessika A Ralph, University of Minnesota; Angeline Ti, Emory University; Avani Duggaraju, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Ping Teresa Yeh, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
• Language: English
• Date: 2022-06-14
• Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2021.06.008
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: CONTRACEPTION
• Volume: 111
• Start Page: 32
• End Page: 38
• Grant/Funding Information: This work was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and by the UNDP‐UNFPA‐UNICEF‐WHO‐World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the World Health Organization (WHO).
• Keywords: Contraception; Life Sciences & Biomedicine; Science & Technology; Humanitarian; EXPERIENCES; FEMALE CONDOM; Injection drug use; Values and preferences; PERCEPTIONS; Family planning; Obstetrics & Gynecology; Transmasculine; Sex worker; WOMEN
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Objective: We sought to systematically review the literature on values and preferences regarding contraception among individuals within selected key populations. Study design: As part of a larger set of reviews on patients’ and providers’ values and preferences related to contraception globally, we searched ten electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2005 to July 27, 2020. No language restrictions were applied. Data was independently abstracted by two authors and study rigor was assessed using an 8-item measure developed by the Evidence Project for quantitative studies and an adapted CASP checklist for qualitative studies. Results: We identified 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria examining selected key populations, including sex workers, transmasculine individuals, people who inject drugs, or those living in humanitarian contexts. Seven key themes that spoke to values and preferences emerged related to: autonomy, perceived effectiveness and safety, birth spacing and family outcomes, impacts on sexual experience, hormonal effects (e.g. desire for non-hormonal method or perception that the method is more natural as compared to hormonal methods), physical attributes (e.g. appearance and/or ease of use), and stigma. Six studies were of high rigor, five were of moderate rigor, and one was of low rigor. One study described the values and preferences of two of the selected key populations. The research available on the values and preferences of sex workers regarding methods of contraception was limited to female condoms. Conclusion: Consideration of the values and preferences of individuals within selected key populations can inform providers, programme managers and policy makers participating in the delivery of contraceptive care. Contraceptive research among sex workers, transmasculine individuals, people who inject drugs, or those living in humanitarian contexts is quite limited; further research is needed to better understand the values and preferences of these populations.