A systematic review exploring the contraception values and preferences of sex workers, transmasculine individuals, people who inject drugs, and those living in humanitarian contexts

Abstract

ObjectiveWe sought to systematically review the literature on values and preferences regarding contraception among individuals within selected key populations. Study designAs part of a larger set of reviews on patients’ and providers’ values and preferences related to contraception globally, we searched ten electronic databases for articles from January 1, 2005 to July 27, 2020. No language restrictions were applied. Data was independently abstracted by two authors and study rigor was assessed using an 8-item measure developed by the Evidence Project for quantitative studies and an adapted CASP checklist for qualitative studies. ResultsWe identified 12 studies that met our inclusion criteria examining selected key populations, including sex workers, transmasculine individuals, people who inject drugs, or those living in humanitarian contexts. Seven key themes that spoke to values and preferences emerged related to: autonomy, perceived effectiveness and safety, birth spacing and family outcomes, impacts on sexual experience, hormonal effects (e.g. desire for non-hormonal method or perception that the method is more natural as compared to hormonal methods), physical attributes (e.g. appearance and/or ease of use), and stigma. Six studies were of high rigor, five were of moderate rigor, and one was of low rigor. One study described the values and preferences of two of the selected key populations. The research available on the values and preferences of sex workers regarding methods of contraception was limited to female condoms. ConclusionConsideration of the values and preferences of individuals within selected key populations can inform providers, programme managers and policy makers participating in the delivery of contraceptive care. Contraceptive research among sex workers, transmasculine individuals, people who inject drugs, or those living in humanitarian contexts is quite limited; further research is needed to better understand the values and preferences of these populations.