-
Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters Dec 2020Contraception is essential to preventing unintended pregnancy. While contraceptive use has increased significantly over the past decade, discontinuation and gaps in use...
Contraception is essential to preventing unintended pregnancy. While contraceptive use has increased significantly over the past decade, discontinuation and gaps in use remain common. Although women cite side effects as the reason for discontinuing or stopping methods, little is known about the specific ways in which contraception affects women's sexual experiences. This systematic scoping review aimed to understand how contraceptive-induced side effects relating to women's sexual experiences have been measured, classified, and explored in the literature, specifically in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed, English-language articles published between 2003 and 2018 that examined women's sexual experiences related to their use of modern contraception, including sexual satisfaction, arousal, sexual dysfunction, discomfort, vaginal dryness, sexual frequency, and relationship or partner dynamics. Study populations were restricted to women of reproductive age in LMICs. Twenty-two studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, comprising a range of methods and geographies. Emergent sexual experience themes included: menstrual issues impacting sexual experience; libido; lubrication; sexual pleasure; dyspareunia; and female sexual function. Results highlight the variability in measures used, lack of a women-centred perspective, and void in research outside of high-income countries to study the influence of contraception on women's sexual experiences. Very few studies focused on women's sexual experiences as the primary outcome or predictor. Providers should adopt woman-centred contraceptive counselling that considers women's relationships. Further research is needed to disentangle the nuanced effects of contraception on women's sex lives, contraceptive decision-making, and method continuation.
Topics: Contraception; Contraception Behavior; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Menstruation; Sexual Behavior
PubMed: 32530748
DOI: 10.1080/26410397.2020.1763652 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Dec 2019The overall positive effects of coitus have not been estimated before. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for coitus versus everything. A search was... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The overall positive effects of coitus have not been estimated before. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted for coitus versus everything. A search was made in MEDLINE resulting in 1,121 hits. The authors screened studies and conducted a meta-analysis. Thirty publications randomising to coitus or something else were included. Pooled results showed a relative risk of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86-0.96) favouring "everything else" over coitus. Subjective pleasure is not a primary outcome in any of the included studies, and trialists must have regarded this outcome as less important. In conclusion, coitus cannot be recommended based on the published randomised studies. Evaluation by evidence-based methodology makes it clear, that better alternatives exist.
Topics: Coitus; Humans
PubMed: 31908260
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Neuroscience Methods Jul 2023Exposing rats to repeated unpredictable stressors is a popular method for modelling depression. The sucrose preference test is used to assess the validity of this...
BACKGROUND
Exposing rats to repeated unpredictable stressors is a popular method for modelling depression. The sucrose preference test is used to assess the validity of this method, as it measures a rat´s preference for a sweet solution as an indicator of its ability to experience pleasure. Typically, if stressed rats show a lower preference compared to unstressed rats, it is concluded they are experiencing stress-induced anhedonia.
METHODS
While conducting a systematic review, we identified 18 studies that used thresholds to define anhedonia and to distinguish "susceptible" from "resilient" individuals. Based on their definitions, researchers either excluded "resilient" animals from further analyses or treated them as a separate cohort. We performed a descriptive analysis to understand the rationale behind these criteria.
RESULTS
we found that the methods used for characterizing the stressed rats were largely unsupported. Many authors failed to justify their choices or relied exclusively on referencing previous studies. When tracing back the method to its origins, we converged on a pioneering article that, although employed as a universal evidence-based justification, cannot be regarded as such. What is more, through a simulation study, we provided evidence that removing or splitting data, based on an arbitrary threshold, introduces statistical bias by overestimating the effect of stress.
CONCLUSION
Caution must be exercised when implementing a predefined cut-off for anhedonia. Researchers should be aware of potential biases introduced by their data treatment strategies and strive for transparent reporting of methodological decisions.
Topics: Rats; Animals; Anhedonia; Sucrose; Depression; Food Preferences; Stress, Psychological; Disease Models, Animal
PubMed: 37394102
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2023.109910