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 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 5%
23.9%
2
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
15.6%
3
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.6%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
4.6%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.9%
7
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
8
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 46%
2.5%
10
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
11
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
12
Sexually Transmitted Infections
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
13
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
15
Human Reproduction
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
16
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
17
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
18
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
19
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
20
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
21
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
22
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 52%
0.9%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
0.9%
24
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
27
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%