What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products?

Stephanie Knox, Rosalie Viney (), Deborah Street, Marion Haas, Denzil Fiebig, Edith Weisberg and Deborah Bateson

PharmacoEconomics, 2012, vol. 30, issue 12, 1187-1202

Abstract: Women and GPs agree that longer-acting methods with less bleeding are important features in preferred methods of contraception; however, women are also attracted to products involving less invasive modes of administration. While the vaginal ring may fill the niche in Australia for a relatively non-invasive, moderately long-acting and effective contraceptive, the results of this study indicate that GPs will need to promote the benefits of the vaginal ring to overcome negative perceptions about this method among women who may benefit from using it. Copyright Springer International Publishing AG 2012

Date: 2012
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Journal Article: What’s Good and Bad About Contraceptive Products? (2012)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:pharme:v:30:y:2012:i:12:p:1187-1202

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

DOI: 10.2165/11598040-000000000-00000

Access Statistics for this article

PharmacoEconomics is currently edited by Timothy Wrightson and Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in PharmacoEconomics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().