Diferencias en la utilización de métodos de planificación familiar por mujeres adolescentes en Monterrey, México, según el modelo de educación sanitaria utilizado

Abstract

RESUMENFundamento: El objetivo fue comparar la utilización de méto-dos de planificación familiar durante el puerperio inmediato y dos años después del parto en las mujeres adolescentes que habían seguido dos programas diferentes de intervención durante su embarazo. Métodos:Se diseñó un estudio cuasiexperimental. Se seleccionó a 62 adolescentes embarazadas que se integraron en dos grupos de intervención, el modelo PRECEDE y el de Creencias en Salud (MCS). Se aplicaron pruebas estadísticas no paramétricas y se estimaron intervalos de confianza de 95%.Resultados: El promedio de conocimiento inicial en el grupo MCS fue de 69,12 puntos (IC95% 63,27-74,97) y al final 89,71 puntos (IC95% 86,17), mientras que el inicial del grupo PRECE-DE fue de 49,39 puntos (IC 95% 42,54) y al final de 75,25 puntos (IC 95% 71,38). En el puerperio inmediato el 93% (IC 95% 83,5-100) de las adolescentes del grupo PRECEDE aceptaron el uso de un método de planificación familiar, similar al empleado por el grupo MCS, de 94,2 (IC 95% 86,3-100). En cuanto a la continuidad en el uso del método, es decir dos años después, el efecto de la estrategia PRECEDE fue superior al del MCS, 92% (IC 95% 82-100) y 72% (IC 95% 56,9-87,1) respectivamente.Conclusiones: Se encontró diferencia entre modelos en lo concerniente a la utilización de métodos de planificación familiar a los 2 años. Se propone el programa PRECEDE como estrategia educativa para prevenir un segundo embarazo en mujeres adolescentes.Palabras clave: Salud de los Adolescentes. Embarazo en Adolescencia. Servicios de planificación familiar. Conducta reproductiva. ABSTRACT Differences in the Use of Family Planning Methods by Adolescent Females According to the Education Model Utilized During Pregnancy. Monterrey, MexicoBackground: The objective was to compare the use of family planning methods during the immediate postpartum period and two years following childbirth among the adolescent females who had followed two different intervention programs during their pregnancies. Methods:A quasi-experimental study was designed. A total of 62 pregnant adolescents were selected to comprised two intervention groups, the PRECEDE model and the Health Belief model (MCS) groups. Non-parametric statistical tests were employed and 95% confidence intervals estimated. Results:The average starting knowledge in the MCS groups was 69.12 points (95% CI 63.27-74.97) and ending 89.71 points (95% CI 86.24-93.17), while the starting knowledge for the PRECEDE group was 49.39 points (95% CI 42.24-56.54) and ending 75.25 points (95% CI 71.12-79.38). IN the immediate postpartum, 93% (95% CI 83.5-100) of the adolescents in the PRECED group accepted the use of a family planning method similar to that employed by the MCS group, of 94.2 (95% CI 86.3-100). As regards the continued use of the method, that is, two years later, the PRECEDE strategy had a greater effect that the MCS strategy, respectively 92% (95% CI 82-100) and 72% (95% CI 56.9-87.1). Conclusions:A difference was found to exist between models as regards the use of f...

Intervention Now to Eliminate Repeat Unintended Pregnancy in Teenagers (INTERUPT): a systematic review of intervention effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and qualitative and realist synthesis of implementation factors and user engagement

“…We analysed 10 individually randomised trials in the primary meta-analysis [ 9 , 10 , 19 , 20 , 37 , 39 – 46 ]. Of the remaining trials, one was a cluster randomised trial [ 47 ], one was an analysis of smaller unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials and had an uncertain risk of bias [ 58 ] and two studies [ 59 , 60 ] were non-randomised trials. These four studies were included in the sensitivity analysis.…”

“…4 ). However, when four larger, but lower quality studies [ 47 , 58 , 59 ] were included in the sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome (unintended repeat pregnancy), the estimate approached but did not reach statistical significance: event rates of 288 of 1077 (27%) in the intervention arm and 297 of 1004 (30%) in the control arm, giving an RR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.78–1.00). (See Additional file 1 : Section 10.)…”