ABSTRACT

Background In recent years, hormonal contraceptive use has declined in Germany, yet little is known about the contraceptive needs and preferences of its population. This study addresses this gap by (1) identifying attitudes, subjective knowledge, and information needs of psychology students regarding contraceptive methods, (2) evaluating person-centeredness (PC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in contraceptive counseling, and (3) comparing users of hormonal and non-hormonal methods regarding attitudes, knowledge, and age.

Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted via an online survey among psychology students in Germany who were biologically capable of becoming pregnant. PC in counseling was assessed using the Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling Scale (PCCC), while SDM was measured using the CollaboRATE questionnaire and Control Preference Scale. Attitudes, knowledge, and information needs were evaluated through adapted or self-developed items. The PCCC was translated and adapted using a team translation protocol (TRAPD).

Results Of 126 participants, 82.6% used at least one contraceptive method, mainly condoms (43.8%) and the combined pill (19.8%). Hormonal users were younger (M=22.84) than non-hormonal users (M=25.40). Attitudes toward hormonal contraception were generally negative. Participants reported good or basic knowledge of 9 out of 15 methods; non-hormonal users knew more methods than hormonal users. Gynecologists (36.7%) were the most frequent information source. About 35.7% had received contraceptive counseling in the previous year but reported low satisfaction with the information provided. Overall, PC and SDM were only partially implemented in contraceptive counseling.

Conclusion Findings highlight the need for more person-centered counseling to support informed decisions. The results can inform interventions aimed at improving contraceptive knowledge among users and enhancing PC and SDM practices among gynecologists.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The study was carried out according to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association. Principles of good scientific practice have been respected. The study was approved by the Psychological Ethics Committee of the Center for Psychosocial Medicine of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany (LPEK-0771). Standards of research eth-ics were met. This includes that study participation was voluntary and no foreseeable risks for par-ticipants resulted from the participation. Participants were fully informed about the aims of the study, data collection, and the use of collected data beforehand. Informed consent was sought prior to participation. Preserving principles of data sensitivity, data protection and confidentiality requirements were met.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSALAnja LindigCHERRIESChecklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-SurveysHCHormonal ContraceptionHCPHealthcare ProviderIUDIntrauterine DeviceJSJohanna SeiwertMRMareike RutenkrögerOCPOral Contraceptive PillPCPerson-CenterednessSDMShared Decision-MakingTANCOThinking About Needs in Contraception studyTRAPDTranslation, Review, Adjudication, Pretesting and DocumentationVLVanessa Le