Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point of care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

For more information, click below.


Subscribers log in here


Barrier contraception: Diaphragm

INTRODUCTION

The diaphragm is a female contraceptive device consisting of a soft dome-shaped cup with a flexible rim. Diaphragms are now made of silicone in the United States, but latex diaphragms may be available elsewhere. Before coitus, the hollow of the dome is partially filled with a spermicidal cream or jelly and then the diaphragm is inserted deep into the vagina and positioned so that it fits over the cervix (figure 1). Contraception results from both a barrier effect and the spermicidal action of the spermicide [1].

The percentage of reproductive-aged women using the diaphragm is decreasing [2]. This decrease is probably due to the higher contraceptive effectiveness of oral contraceptives and condoms, the convenience and privacy of hormonal contraception, and the broader protection against sexually transmitted diseases afforded by male and female condoms.

PATIENT SELECTION

Most women can use the diaphragm; however; it is not a good method for those who have an allergy/sensitivity to its components (eg, latex, silicone, spermicides); significant pelvic organ prolapse (uterine prolapse, cystocele, rectocele, poor vaginal tone); frequent urinary tract infections; HIV infection or are at high risk for acquiring HIV; or have difficulty with the insertion process. A history of toxic shock syndrome is a contraindication to this method of contraception. Most cases of toxic shock syndrome associated with diaphragm use involved leaving the diaphragm in the vagina for more than 24 hours [3].

Adolescents generally are not good candidates for using a diaphragm because it requires a high level of motivation and some skill and affords less protection from sexually transmitted infections than condoms. Privacy is also an issue since the diaphragm needs to be stored and transported to sites of potential sexual encounters. Older women in monogamous relationships are more likely to choose this method and use it successfully [4].

Women choose to use the diaphragm after weighing the advantages and disadvantages and comparing this method to alternatives. (See "Overview of contraception".)

                   

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article you must have access through your hospital or your group practice, log in to your personal subscription, or purchase a personal subscription. For more information, click below.
Literature review current through: May 2013. | This topic last updated: Aug 2, 2012.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2013 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Cook, L, Nanda, K, Grimes, D. Diaphragm versus diaphragm with spermicides for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; :CD002031.
  2. Piccinino LJ, Mosher WD. Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982-1995. Fam Plann Perspect 1998; 30:4.
  3. Schwartz B, Gaventa S, Broome CV, et al. Nonmenstrual toxic shock syndrome associated with barrier contraceptives: report of a case-control study. Rev Infect Dis 1989; 11 Suppl 1:S43.
  4. Harvey SM, Bird ST, Maher JE, Beckman LJ. Who continues using the diaphragm and who doesn't: implications for the acceptability of female-controlled HIV prevention methods. Womens Health Issues 2003; 13:185.
  5. Hooton TM, Scholes D, Stapleton AE, et al. A prospective study of asymptomatic bacteriuria in sexually active young women. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:992.
  6. Fihn SD, Boyko EJ, Normand EH, et al. Association between use of spermicide-coated condoms and Escherichia coli urinary tract infection in young women. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 144:512.
  7. Hooton TM, Scholes D, Hughes JP, et al. A prospective study of risk factors for symptomatic urinary tract infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1996; 335:468.
  8. Fihn SD, Boyko EJ, Chen CL, et al. Use of spermicide-coated condoms and other risk factors for urinary tract infection caused by Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158:281.
  9. Schreiber CA, Meyn LA, Creinin MD, et al. Effects of long-term use of nonoxynol-9 on vaginal flora. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:136.
  10. Kuyoh, MA, Toroitich-Ruto, C, Grimes, DA, et al. Sponge versus diaphragm for contraception: a Cochrane review. Contraception 2008; 67:15.
  11. Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Cervical cap versus diaphragm for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; :CD003551.
  12. Mauck C, Callahan M, Weiner DH, Dominik 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.
  13. Cervical barrier advancement society http://www.cervicalbarriers.org/ (Accessed on April 17, 2012).
  14. Hatcher, RA, Guest F, Stewart FK, et al. Contraceptive Technology, 14th Ed, Irvington Publishers, New York 1988. p. 340.
  15. Mauck C, Lai JJ, Schwartz J, Weiner DH. Diaphragms in clinical trials: is clinician fitting necessary? Contraception 2004; 69:263.
  16. Bounds W, Guillebaud J, Dominik R, Dalberth BT. The diaphragm with and without spermicide. A randomized, comparative efficacy trial. J Reprod Med 1995; 40:764.
  17. Roddy RE, Zekeng L, Ryan KA, et al. Effect of nonoxynol-9 gel on urogenital gonorrhea and chlamydial infection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002; 287:1117.
  18. Nonoxynol-9 spermicide contraception use-United States 1999. MMWR Morbid Mortal Wkly Rep 2002; 51:389.