Improved survival and health among people with cystic fibrosis (PwCF) have made reproductive health a growing clinical priority. The study aimed to characterize current patterns of contraception use, identify knowledge gaps, and determine patient priorities for education and counseling within the CF community. Rising rates of both intended and unintended pregnancy motivated a need to understand contraceptive decision-making among adult females with CF.
The investigators developed a web-based survey in partnership with Community Voice, a virtual community of PwCF and their family members supported by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. Eligibility criteria for the survey included being female, having cystic fibrosis, and being age 18 years or older. The survey focused on contraceptive methods in use, reasons for method choice or discontinuation, knowledge about medication interactions, and preferences for sources of contraception information.
The survey was distributed over a 5-week period (June–July 2025) to members of Community Voice and Elevate. Ninety-seven PwCF completed the survey, with respondents drawn from 27 U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. The publication reports participant count and geographic distribution; additional demographic details beyond location were not reported in the abstract.
Among respondents who were currently using contraception, the most frequently reported methods were intrauterine devices (IUDs) at 34.0%, combined oral contraceptives at 28.3%, and condoms/barrier methods at 24.5%. Overall, 90% of respondents stated they were not actively trying to conceive, yet only 55% reported using any form of birth control. These findings indicate a gap between pregnancy intentions and contraceptive use among the surveyed PwCF.
The survey included knowledge-based questions that revealed persistent misconceptions about the impact of commonly used antibiotics on contraceptive effectiveness. The abstract reports that misunderstandings remained but does not provide item-level accuracy rates or specify which antibiotics were most commonly misunderstood. Details about the exact knowledge questions and response distributions were not reported in the source abstract.
Side-effect concerns were highly influential in contraceptive choices. The majority of respondents (78.9%) selected contraceptive methods based on side-effect profiles, placing side-effect considerations above efficacy in decision-making. A substantial proportion (68.6%) reported experiencing side effects from contraception, and side effects were cited as the leading reason for discontinuation of a method. The abstract does not provide a breakdown of specific adverse effects or the frequency of method-switching beyond these summary percentages.
Most PwCF surveyed (68.1%) expressed a preference to receive contraception information from their CF care team. Despite this preference, only 28.9% reported having received contraception education from their CF team. The authors highlight a role for multidisciplinary CF teams, including pharmacists, to provide medication counseling and support selection of contraceptive methods that align with patient goals and medical needs.
The study concludes that CF care teams can play a critical role in initiating and supporting conversations about contraception for people with cystic fibrosis. Team members—particularly pharmacists—are positioned to address knowledge gaps regarding drug interactions and to help PwCF choose methods that match their priorities, especially given the high weight patients place on side-effect profiles. The abstract emphasizes the need for improved contraception counseling within CF care but does not report specific intervention models or measured outcomes of counseling programs.
All numerical data and findings above are reported in the published abstract. The source abstract does not include detailed demographic breakdowns beyond geographic representation, does not present full survey items or psychometric properties, and does not report long-term outcomes or follow-up. If additional methodological details or subgroup analyses are needed, those were not reported in the abstract and would require consultation of the full published article.