Centre for Demographic Research, Université catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu 1, L2.08.03, B-1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium; Institut National d'Études Démographiques (Ined), 9 Cours des Humanités, F-93300, Aubervilliers, France.
Institut National d'Études Démographiques (Ined), 9 Cours des Humanités, F-93300, Aubervilliers, France; Centre Population et Développement (Ceped), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD) and Université de Paris, Inserm ERL 1244, 45 Rue des Saints-Pères, F-75006, Paris, France.
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Sep;284:114247. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114247. Epub 2021 Jul 20.
Over the past decade, women in Western countries have taken to various social media platforms to share their dissatisfactory experiences with hormonal contraception, which may be pills, patches, rings, injectables, implants or hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs). These online testimonials have been denounced as spreading "hormonophobia", i.e. an excessive fear of hormones based on irrational causes such as an overestimation of health risks associated with their use, that was already aroused by the recurring media controversies over hormonal contraception. In order to move toward a reproductive justice framework, we propose to study the arguments that women and men (as partners of female users) recently put forward against hormonal contraception to see whether they are related to hormonophobia. The aim of this article is to conduct a systematic review of the recent scientific literature in order to construct an evidence-based typology of reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception, in a continuum perspective from complaints to choosing not to use it, cited by women and men in Western countries in a recent time. The published literature was systematically searched using PubMed and the database from the French National Institute for Demographic Studies (Ined). A total of 42 articles were included for full-text analysis. Eight main categories emerged as reasons for rejecting hormonal contraception: problems related to physical side effects; altered mental health; negative impact on sexuality; concerns about future fertility; invocation of nature; concerns about menstruation; fears and anxiety; and the delegitimization of the side effects of hormonal contraceptives. Thus, arguments against hormonal contraception appeared complex and multifactorial. Future research should examine the provider-patient relationship, the gender bias of hormonal contraception and demands for naturalness in order to understand how birth control could better meet the needs and expectations of women and men in Western countries today.
在过去的十年中，西方国家的女性在各种社交媒体平台上分享了她们对激素避孕的不满经历，这些经历可能是药丸、贴片、环、注射剂、植入物或激素宫内节育器 (IUD)。这些在线证明被谴责为传播“激素恐惧症”，即基于不合理原因对激素的过度恐惧，例如高估与使用相关的健康风险，这已经被激素避孕的反复媒体争议所引发。为了迈向生殖公正框架，我们建议研究女性和男性（作为女性使用者的伴侣）最近提出的反对激素避孕的论点，以了解它们是否与激素恐惧症有关。本文的目的是对最近的科学文献进行系统综述，以便在一个连续的视角下，从抱怨到选择不使用它，构建一个基于证据的拒绝激素避孕的原因分类法，该分类法由西方国家的女性和男性最近提出。使用 PubMed 和法国国家人口研究所（Ined）的数据库系统地搜索了已发表的文献。共纳入 42 篇全文进行分析。出现了八种主要类别的拒绝激素避孕的原因：与身体副作用相关的问题；心理健康改变；对性行为的负面影响；对未来生育能力的担忧；援引自然；对月经的担忧；恐惧和焦虑；以及对激素避孕药副作用的合法性的质疑。因此，反对激素避孕的论点似乎复杂且多因素。未来的研究应研究提供者-患者关系、激素避孕的性别偏见以及对自然性的需求，以了解避孕药具如何更好地满足当今西方国家女性和男性的需求和期望。
