Hitchcock Christine L
Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research (CeMCOR), Endocrinology/Medicine, University of British Columbia and Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Health Care Women Int. 2008 Aug;29(7):702-19. doi: 10.1080/07399330802179155.
In this article I review common arguments and frameworks used by participants in the debate about extended use of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs; usually oral contraceptive pills) for menstrual suppression. I examine the way in which menstruation is described and the scope of risks considered. I consider the role of the pharmaceutical industry, personal and clinical experience, and concerns about the contraceptive effectiveness of contraceptive formulations with lower doses. I also address public consequences of the debate, including the possibility of inciting a pill scare, and increasing product awareness and off-label practice.
在本文中,我回顾了关于延长使用复方激素避孕药(CHCs;通常为口服避孕药)来抑制月经的辩论中,参与者所使用的常见论点和框架。我审视了对月经的描述方式以及所考虑的风险范围。我考量了制药行业的作用、个人及临床经验,以及对低剂量避孕药配方避孕效果的担忧。我还探讨了这场辩论的公共影响,包括引发避孕药恐慌、提高产品认知度以及非标签用药行为增加的可能性。