Contraception Choice for Female Endurance Athletes: What’s Sport Got to Do With It? A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While there are several prescribed contraceptive methods available, limited evidence exists to guide contraceptive decision-making in the context of endurance sport. OBJECTIVES: Study objectives were to characterize current and previous use, perceived impacts, and the decision process around contraceptives in endurance athletes. METHODS: This was an online survey study with female endurance athletes recruited through social media and emails to university/club coaches and sport organizations. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 323 female endurance athletes participated. Among current contraception users (n = 182), 51% used hormonal intrauterine devices (hIUDs), 29% oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), and 13% nonhormonal IUDs (nhIUDs). hIUD users had the highest perceived positive training (39%) and competition (29%) impacts, citing reduced menstrual bleeding and symptoms as positive side effects. OCP and nhIUD users had higher rates of perceived negative training impacts (OCPs 10%, nhIUDs 30%). For OCP users, 31% reported perceived adverse body composition outcomes and 37% reported negative mood changes. Among nhIUD users, 74% experienced heavier, more irregular menstrual bleeding. Over half of participants were unsure about the impact of their current method on performance. For contraceptive selection, 95% felt that information from physicians was important, yet 32% felt performance was inadequately considered during counseling discussion. Athletes reported less frustration with their contraception choice when counseled in the context of sport. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study quantifies and qualifies the lived experiences of female endurance athletes with contraception. hIUDs were the most currently used and well-tolerated contraceptives among participants. This research offers valuable insights for athletes seeking contraception and looking to optimize both performance and health, along with the healthcare professionals guiding them.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".