Author Affiliations: Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco (Drs Stewart, Harper, and Sawaya); The Population Council, Mexico City, Mexico (Dr Ellertson); Family Health International, Research Triangle Park, NC (Dr Grimes); Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Office of Population Research, Princeton University, NJ (Dr Trussell).
Clinical breast and pelvic examinations are commonly accepted practices
prior to provision of hormonal contraception. Such examinations, however,
may reduce access to highly effective contraceptive methods, and may therefore
increase women's overall health risks. These unnecessary requirements also
involve ethical considerations and unwittingly reinforce the widely held but
incorrect perception that hormonal contraceptive methods are dangerous.
This article reviews and summarizes the relevant medical literature
and policy statements from major organizations active in the field of contraception.
Consensus developed during the last decade supports a change in practice:
hormonal contraception can safely be provided based on careful review of medical
history and blood pressure measurement. For most women, no further evaluation
is necessary. Pelvic and breast examinations and screening for cervical neoplasia
and sexually transmitted infection, while important in their own right, do
not provide information necessary for identifying women who should avoid hormonal
contraceptives or who need further evaluation before making a decision about
Stewart FH, Harper CC, Ellertson CE, Grimes DA, Sawaya GF, Trussell J. Clinical Breast and Pelvic Examination Requirements for Hormonal Contraception: Current Practice vs Evidence. JAMA. 2001;285(17):2232–2239. doi:10.1001/jama.285.17.2232
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: