↓ Skip to main content

There might be blood: a scoping review on women’s responses to contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#36 of 1,603)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
55 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
234 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
There might be blood: a scoping review on women’s responses to contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes
Published in
Reproductive Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12978-018-0561-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chelsea B. Polis, Rubina Hussain, Amanda Berry

Abstract

Concern about side effects and health issues are common reasons for contraceptive non-use or discontinuation. Contraceptive-induced menstrual bleeding changes (CIMBCs) are linked to these concerns. Research on women's responses to CIMBCs has not been mapped or summarized in a systematic scoping review. We conducted a systematic scoping review of data on women's responses to CIMBCs in peer-reviewed, English-language publications in the last 15 years. Investigator dyads abstracted information from relevant studies on pre-specified and emergent themes using a standardized form. We held an expert consultation to obtain critical input. We provide recommendations for researchers, contraceptive counselors, and product developers. We identified 100 relevant studies. All world regions were represented (except Antarctica), including Africa (11%), the Americas (32%), Asia (7%), Europe (20%), and Oceania (6%). We summarize findings pertinent to five thematic areas: women's responses to contraceptive-induced non-standard bleeding patterns; CIMBCs influence on non-use, dissatisfaction or discontinuation; conceptual linkages between CIMBCs and health; women's responses to menstrual suppression; and other emergent themes. Women's preferences for non-monthly bleeding patterns ranged widely, though amenorrhea appears most acceptable in the Americas and Europe. Multiple studies reported CIMBCs as top reasons for contraceptive dissatisfaction and discontinuation; others suggested disruption of regular bleeding patterns was associated with non-use. CIMBCs in some contexts were perceived as linked with a wide range of health concerns; e.g., some women perceived amenorrhea to cause a buildup of "dirty" or "blocked" blood, in turn perceived as causing blood clots, fibroids, emotional disturbances, weight gain, infertility, or death. Multiple studies addressed how CIMBCs (or menstruation) impacted daily activities, including participation in domestic, work, school, sports, or religious life; sexual or emotional relationships; and other domains. Substantial variability exists around how women respond to CIMBCs; these responses are shaped by individual and social influences. Despite variation in responses across contexts and sub-populations, CIMBCs can impact multiple aspects of women's lives. Women's responses to CIMBCs should be recognized as a key issue in contraceptive research, counseling, and product development, but may be underappreciated, despite likely - and potentially substantial - impacts on contraceptive discontinuation and unmet need for modern contraception.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 55 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 234 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 234 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 11%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Other 13 6%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 98 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 12%
Social Sciences 22 9%
Psychology 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 28 12%
Unknown 107 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2023.
All research outputs
#639,831
of 25,911,277 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#36
of 1,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,626
of 344,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#3
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,911,277 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 344,303 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.