Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Barrier Contraception

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Primary Care Procedures in Women's Health

  • 577 Accesses

Abstract

The use of barrier methods as the primary mode of contraception has declined over several decades due to the increasing number and relative effectiveness of other available methods. Barrier methods still have a place in providing contraception for certain carefully selected women. Barrier methods available today include male and female condoms, the contraceptive sponge, diaphragms, and cervical caps.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Trussel J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Obiero J, Mwethera PG, Hussey GD, Wiysonge CS. Vaginal microbicidal for reducing the risk of HIV infection in women: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12:289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Black A, Guilbert E, et al. Canadian contraceptive consensus (part 2 of 4). J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(11):s1–s39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF. Non-latex versus latex male condoms for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(1).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Handley MA, Reingold AL, Shiboski S, Padian NS. Incidence of acute urinary tract infection in young women and use of male condoms with and without nonoxynol-9 spermicides. Epidemiology. 2002;13:431–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gallo MF, Kilbourne-Brook M, Coffey PS. A review of the effectiveness and acceptability of the female condom for dual protection. Sex Health. 2012;9:18–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beksinka M, Smit J, Joanis C, Usher-Patel M, Potter W. Female condom technology : new products and regulatory issues. Contraception. 2011;83:316–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hatcher RA, Trussel J, Nelson A, Cates W, Kowal D, Policar M. Contraceptive technology. 20th ed. New York: Ardent Media; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Van Damme L, Ramjee G, Alary M, Vuylsteke B, Chandeying V, Rees H, et al. Effectiveness of COL-1492, a nonoxynol-9 vaginal gel, on HIV-1 transmission in female sex workers: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:971–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schwartz JL, Weiner DH, Lai JJ, et al. Contraceptive efficacy, safety, fit and acceptability of a single-size diaphragm developed with end-user input. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:895–903.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cook L, Nanda K, Grimes D. Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception (review). Cochrane Library. 2007;(1).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barnhart KT, Rosenberg MJ, MacKay HT, Blithe DL, Higgins J, Walsh T, et al. Contraceptive efficacy of a novel spermicidal microbicide used with a diaphragm: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:577–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. d’Oro LC, Parazzini F, Naldi L, LaVecchia C. Barrier methods of contraception, spermicides and sexually transmitted diseases: a review. Genitourin Med. 1994;70:410–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Shulz KF. Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1).

    Google Scholar 

  15. FDA summary of safety and effectiveness data. FemCapTM; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mauck C, Callahan M, Weiner DH, Dominick R. A comparative study of the safety and efficacy of FemCap, a new vaginal barrier contraceptive, and the Ortho all flex diaphragm. The FemCap Investigators’ Group. Contraception. 1999;60:71–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Additional Resources

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Barnes Center at the Arch- Health, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Jennifer W. McCaul

Authors
  1. Jennifer W. McCaul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer W. McCaul .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Community Health, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Medical Director, Rutgers University Student Health, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Cathryn B. Heath

  2. Medical Director of Primary Care, St. Joseph’s Health, Professor of Family Medicine, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse, NY, USA

    Sandra M. Sulik

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McCaul, J.W. (2020). Barrier Contraception. In: Heath, C., Sulik, S. (eds) Primary Care Procedures in Women's Health. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28884-6_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28884-6_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28883-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28884-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation