Studies from several countries suggest women differ in their preferred length of nonbleeding intervals, yet studies to date have not explored the social determinants of such preferences.
We report results from a menstrual preference and social survey of 1207 healthy women in three age groups (18���20, 25���34 and 45���49 years) and two educational strata (high and low educational attainment), from Campinas (Brazil), Heidelberg (Germany) and Ann Arbor (USA) (���400 women from each country).
Women's preferred length of nonbleeding intervals differed significantly between countries. In Ann Arbor, only 15.5% of women preferred to bleed monthly, vs. 30.2% in Heidelberg. In both Ann Arbor and Campinas, approximately one-third of women preferred to ���never��� have menses, compared to 8.2% in Heidelberg. Multivariate analyses indicated that country, church attendance, stress and menstrual pain were significant predictors of women's preferences.
The most common preference among women was to bleed once every 3 months, but preferences varied substantially by country groups. Preferences for nonbleeding intervals were, in part, explained by personal experiences of stress or menstrual pain, but unexplained cultural differences persist between country groups.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Contraception
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Acceptability of an oral contraceptive that reduces the frequency of menstruation: the tri-cycle pill regimen.Br Med J. 1977; 2: 487-490
- Menstrual reduction with extended use of combined oral contraceptive pills: randomized clinical trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 9: 771-778
- Attributes of contraceptive technology: women's preferences in seven countries.Reprod Health Matters. 1997; 10: 36-48
- Preferences for contraceptive attributes: voices of women in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.Int Fam Plan Perspect. 1997; 23: 52-58
- Once-a-month injectable contraceptives: efficacy and reasons for discontinuation.Contraception. 1994; 49: 387-398
- Effectiveness of Cyclofem in the treatment of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate-induced amenorrhea.Contraception. 1998; 57: 23-28
- Assessing the acceptability of Norplant implants in four countries: findings from focus group research.Stud Fam Plann. 1990; 21: 92-103
- Detailed analysis of menstrual bleeding patterns after postmenopausal and postabortal insertion of a copper IUD or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.Contraception. 1996; 54: 201-208
- Preferred frequency and characteristics of menstrual bleeding in relation to reproductive status, oral contraceptive use, and hormone replacement therapy use.Contraception. 1999; 59: 357--62
- Attitude of German women and gynecologists towards long-cycle treatment with oral contraceptives.Contraception. 2004; 69: 37-42
- Amenorrhea associated with contraception ��� an international study on acceptability.Contraception. 2003; 67: 1-8
- Is menstruation obsolete?.Oxford University Press, New York1999
- Nuisance or natural and healthy: should monthly menstruation be optional for women?.Lancet. 2000; 355: 922-924
- The need to bleed: women's attitudes and beliefs about menstruation suppression.J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2004; 16: 31-37
- Qualitative research and evaluation methods.Sage Publications, London1990
- A cross-cultural study of menstruation: implications for contraceptive development and use.Stud Fam Plann. 1981; 12: 3-16
- Balancing effectiveness, side-effects and work: women's perceptions and experiences with modern contraceptive technology in Cambodia.Soc Sci Med. 1999; 49: 343-358
- Menstruation and amenorrhea: opinion of Brazilian women.Contraception. 2005; 72: 157-161
Published online: May 21, 2007
Accepted: March 20, 2007
Received in revised form: March 18, 2007
Received: January 18, 2007
© 2007 Published by Elsevier Inc.