Associations between hormonal contraception use, sociodemographic factors and mental health: a nationwide, register-based, matched case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sociodemographic and mental health characteristics are associated with contraceptive choices. We aimed to describe the sociodemographic, reproductive and mental health characteristics of all fertile-aged women in Finland who used hormonal contraception (HC) in 2017. DESIGN: A nationwide, register-based study. SETTING: All women living in Finland in 2017; data from the Care Register of Health Care, Medical Birth Register, Population Register Centre, Prescription Centre, Register of Induced Abortions. PARTICIPANTS: All women aged 15-49 with one redeemed HC prescription in 2017 (n=294 356), and a same-sized, age-matched and residence-matched, control group of non-users. OUTCOMES: Rates of HC use; associations between HC use and mental disorders, sociodemographic and reproductive characteristics. RESULTS: 25.8% of women aged 15-49 years used HC. Women with the lowest socioeconomic levels had lower odds of using HC than women with upper-level statuses (OR, 95% CI students: 0.97, 0.94 to 0.99; entitled to pension: 0.66, 0.63 to 0.69; other: 0.87, 0.85 to 0.89; unknown: 0.90, 0.85 to 0.90). Women with the highest education (secondary: 1.46, 1.43 to 1.48; tertiary: 1.64, 1.58 to 1.70; academic: 1.60, 1.56 to 1.63) and income (second quarter: 1.57, 1.54 to 1.60; third quarter: 1.85, 1.82 to 1.89; fourth quarter: 2.01, 1.97 to 2.06), and unmarried women had higher odds of using HC than women with the lowest education and income levels, and married (0.61, 0.60 to 0.62), divorced (0.86, 0.84 to 0.88), widowed (0.73, 0.65 to 0.83) or other marital status women (0.26, 0.22 to 0.30).Parous women (0.70, 0.69 to 0.71), those with previous induced abortion(s) (0.91, 0.89 to 0.92) or recent eating (0.68, 0.62 to 0.75) or personality (0.89, 0.79 to 0.97) disorders had lower odds of HC use. Absolute risk differences between women with and without mental disorders ranged from 3.1% (anxiety disorders) to 10.1% (eating disorders). CONCLUSIONS: A quarter of the fertile-aged women use HC in Finland. Sociodemographic disparities persist in relation to HC use, although of small effect size. HC use is less common among women suffering from severe to moderate psychiatric disorders, especially eating disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".