Back

Defining a person-centered conceptual model to inform measurement of contraception's effects on the menstrual cycle

Mackenzie, A.; Smit, J.; Miric, M.; Edelman, A.; Beksinska, M.; Catano, A.; Chung, S.; Cuevas, E.; Delacerda, M.; Forbes, M.; Hoppes, E.; Ingeno, L.; Jacobson, L.; Khomo, M.; Lebetkin, E.; Majola, T.; Matos, M.; Mavundla, M.; McCaffrey, S.; Mendez, A.; Mendez, M.; Mhlaba, N.; Mosery, N.; Ndlovu, L.; Qiya, B.; Stankevitz, K.; Sullivan, A.; Zulu, B.

2026-05-30 sexual and reproductive health
10.64898/2026.05.21.26353514 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: To address the need for improved measurement of the ways contraception impacts the baseline menstrual cycle (i.e., contraceptive-induced menstrual changes; CIMCs) by assembling an interdisciplinary, global research collective to rigorously develop a person-centered measure for CIMCs in multiple languages. As the first step, this paper reports on our conceptual model development, which is the foundation for ongoing measure development. Study design: We conducted 18 focus groups with 106 people experiencing CIMCs while using hormonal or intrauterine contraception in Durban, South Africa, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and Portland Oregon, United States. We used a virtual affinity mapping approach to analyze qualitative data, which was the basis of our conceptual model along with relevant theory and related models in the literature. Results: The conceptual model of experiences with CIMCs depicts the baseline menstrual cycle, including CIMCs and conceptually-linked effects and the impacts and perceptions of those CIMCs. We found key domains of changes in pain, bleeding volume, bleeding patterns, and characteristics of blood. Conclusion: Our CIMC conceptual model will inform development of a measure with evidence of validation across three language and global contexts. Adoption of a person-centered, standardized CIMC measurement across trials will improve knowledge and decision-making between methods.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.