Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
WOMEN USING THE birth control shot as a form of contraceptive have a slightly increased risk of contracting HIV, researchers have found.
New research combining twelve studies involving more than 39,500 participants found that women who use depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA), commonly known as Depo-Provera or the birth control shot, have a moderately increased risk of becoming infected with HIV.
Other forms of hormonal contraception, including oral contraceptive pills, do not appear to increase this risk.
About 144 million women use hormonal contraception worldwide —around 41 million use the injectable forms and 103 million take the oral contraceptive pill. Whether or not use of hormonal contraceptives increases women’s risk of HIV acquisition has been debated for more than two decades. To date, research has been inconclusive.
Researchers from the University of California at Berkeley conducted a meta-analysis of all existing data examining the effect of using the most commonly prescribed forms of hormonal contraception (combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only pills, and the injectable contraceptives DMPA and norethisterone enanthate) on HIV risk up to June 2014.
Analysis of 12 observational studies from sub-Saharan Africa involving 39,560 women suggest that DMPA use increases a woman’s chance of becoming infected with HIV by 40% compared with women using other contraceptive methods or no method.
Although statistically significant, this represents only a moderate increase in relative risk.
High-risk groups
This risk appears to be lower among women in the general population (increase 31%) than for women already at high-risk of acquiring HIV such as sex workers.
However, the limited number of studies on high-risk women leaves uncertainty for this important subgroup of women. No increased risk was noted for users of oral contraceptive pills, combined oral contraceptives, or norethisterone enanthate.
The research paper has been published in the peer-reviewed journal The Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Lauren Ralph, lead author of the study, said the moderate increased risk “is not enough to justify a complete withdrawal of DMPA for women in the general population”.
Banning DMPA would leave many women without immediate access to alternative, effective contraceptive options. This is likely to lead to more unintended pregnancies, and because childbirth remains life-threatening in many developing countries, could increase overall deaths among women.
Ralph added that further research into the link between DMPA in high-risk women, such as commercial sex workers and those in a relationship with a HIV-positive partner is “urgently needed”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Can’t believe this is only being implemented in the US when it’s been well documented in Europe. Another one that’s just been realised in the past 2-3 years is giving them a soother. This again drives the percentage down lower still as they reckon using a soother helps the baby regulate their breathing.
I know someone who lost a baby to SIDS but still insists it’s fine for babies to sleep on their front because she was always placed on her front and her mother’s a nurse. Apparently studies have shown it’s fine, but I think you’ll find a study to support anything.
Sounds like a coping mechanism. Poor woman.
Any articles not from AFP? Any non-American viewpoints on these sites?
AFP is Agence France Presse. Cheese eating surrender monkeys instead of hot dog eating blubber monkeys.
When was placing a baby front way down ever a good idea.
They do in the hospital especially if baby has a lot of mucous, obviously this is completely supervised
General concern was that if you left a baby on its back it could choke on its own vomit so there was some thought behind it… Parents predating 1992 weren’t idiots..
I don’t know why you would put a baby in a room on it’s own?
“Other strategies include offering a child a pacifier at nap time and night as well as ensuring they have all the recommended vaccinations” – this is a hard hitting report that doesn’t half speak the obvious.
My babies always slept better once they moved into their own room. I think I was keeping them awake and vice versa. But for my own peace of mind I purchased an Angel Mat which beeps to let you know if baby stops breathing.
We bought the ‘Angel Care’ monitor with the mattress sensor and it went off twice for our first born and once for our second born. One of the times it went off for our first born we jumped out of bed and I turned on the light – the baby didn’t move. My wife stirred/shook the child and we heard him take a massive intake of breath. I am glad we spent the 100 euros on the Angel Care monitor. It is more expensive than other monitors, but it does go off it your baby stops moving/breathing.
So how are you supposed to keep a baby warm if you live in a house that gets really cold overnight and you can’t use a blanket? Just curious
Sleep suit, gro bag or similar..
have your say