Women’s perceptions about reducing the frequency of monthly bleeding: results from a multinational survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anne Szarewski,1 Cecilia Moeller2 1Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; 2Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Global Market Research General Medicine, Berlin, Germany Background: Monthly bleeding can have a negative impact on daily life and, given the choice, many women would reduce the frequency of bleeding. While some women choose to occasionally postpone or reduce bleeding frequency with an oral contraceptive (OC), most women have no or limited experience of regularly reducing the frequency of scheduled bleeding with OCs, ie, the extended OC regimen. Study design: An online survey of 4039 women aged 15–49 years who were currently using, had used, or would consider using any form of hormonal contraception was conducted in Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, UK, and USA to assess awareness of and the reasons for and against reducing bleeding frequency. Results: Overall, 51.1% and 30.7% of women surveyed were aware that they could occasionally or regularly reduce bleeding frequency with an OC. Moreover, 27.6% and 9.9% of previous/current OC users had occasionally or regularly reduced bleeding frequency with an OC. The main reasons for reducing bleeding frequency were convenience, physician recommendations, special events, and relief of problems associated with bleeding. Many women mistakenly believed that reducing bleeding frequency would have a negative health impact. Conclusion: Additional efforts are needed to educate women about the possibility and potential health benefits of reducing bleeding frequency and to dispel misconceptions about the use of extended OC regimens. Keywords: extended regimen, menstruation, oral contraceptive, withdrawal bleeding, scheduled bleeding
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".