Determinants of Contraception Among Women Undergoing Cancer Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study from Zahedan, Iran

authors:

avatar Khadijeh Asadisarvestani ORCID 1 , 2 , * , avatar Razieh Rayanpour ORCID 3 , avatar Maryam Navaee ORCID 4 , avatar Aseel Hadi Abdulameer ORCID 5

Department of Demography and Geodemography, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia
Department of Social Sciences Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
Department of Social Sciences, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
Pregnancy Health Research Canter, Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Zahedan, Iran
Ashur University, Faculty of Pharmacy, Baghdad, Iraq

how to cite: Asadisarvestani K, Rayanpour R, Navaee M, Hadi Abdulameer A. Determinants of Contraception Among Women Undergoing Cancer Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study from Zahedan, Iran. Shiraz E-Med J. 2024;25(10):e145775. https://doi.org/10.5812/semj-145775.

Abstract

Objectives:

This study investigates the prevalence of contraceptive use among women receiving cancer treatment in Zahedan, southeast Iran. We evaluated the role of various demographic and socio-cultural factors, fertility intentions, and care providers in contraceptive use.

Methods:

This cross-sectional study was conducted on 133 women of reproductive age receiving cancer treatment (chemotherapy or radiotherapy) in Zahedan. Patients referred to three medical centers in Zahedan from November 2019 to May 2020 were selected via the convenience sampling method and interviewed using a questionnaire. The data were analyzed in SPSS (version 18) using multinomial logistic regression.

Results:

It was found that 34.6% (N = 46) of women undergoing cancer treatment were at risk of unintended pregnancy, with 23.3% (N = 31) using the withdrawal method and 11.3% (N = 15) not using any form of contraception. Additionally, 37.0% (N = 49) of women reported inadequate knowledge about emergency contraception methods. Furthermore, 46.6% (N = 62) of women stated that the physician responsible for their cancer treatment had never discussed contraceptives with them.
The highest prevalence of traditional contraceptive methods and non-use of contraception was observed among illiterate women, women with primary education, women living in polygamous families, women desiring more than four children, women who did not agree with their husbands on the contraceptive method, women who did not receive any physician consultation, and women living far from health centers.
The multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that the main predictors of contraception use were physician consultation about contraception (OR = 13.64, 95% CI: 2.13-87.32, P = .006) and couple agreement on the contraception method (OR = 9.91, 95% CI: 1.69-58.15, P = .011).

Conclusions:

Considering that, based on new population policies in Iran, access to free family planning (FP) services has ended and access to contraceptives is limited, women of reproductive age with illnesses—especially those with poor socioeconomic status, those living in polygamous families, and those in less developed regions—should be considered as a vulnerable group by the healthcare system. Furthermore, men should be included in consultation sessions with care providers to improve their participation in FP.

1. Background

The World Health Organization has identified family planning (FP) as one of the six fundamental health interventions to achieve safe motherhood, and the United Nations Children's Fund has introduced it as one of the seven strategies for child survival (1). According to the UN Millennium development goal five, contraceptive use and reduction of unmet needs for FP are essential in promoting maternal health (2). Since FP plays a vital role in addressing gender issues, poverty, and health, it is considered a key factor in achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (3).

Family planning services (FPs) become even more important when women have certain health conditions such as cancer. Although cancer treatment methods can affect reproductive ability and reduce ovarian reserve, women may remain fertile during treatment (4-8). Accordingly, using the proper contraception method is of great importance, as pregnancy during treatment can cause many complications and threaten the health of the mother and the unborn baby (9-11). Women experience a significant psychological burden during the diagnosis and treatment of cancer; therefore, pregnancy during this period can be devastating (5) and disrupt the treatment and recovery processes (11). Existing research suggests that some women, even when their life is at risk, may avoid treatment for fear of fetal side effects (12). Despite the importance of contraception use among patients with chronic diseases, little attention has been paid to this topic and FP counseling among women undergoing cancer treatment (13, 14).

Cancer is the third leading cause of mortality in Iran, with a rising trend in recent years (15-18) and an annual incidence rate of 70,000 cases (1). Sistan and Baluchestan province, southeast of Iran, ranks the lowest among Iranian provinces in terms of human development indices (19), and 25.0% of women aged 14 to 44 years in this province are illiterate (20). The results of the 2017 census in Iran reveal this province has the highest total fertility rate (3.96) (21, 22). The province also has a high rate of unintended pregnancy (27.0%) (23), which can imply the desire for a higher number of children, the low prevalence of contraception use, high rates of contraceptive failure, and unmet needs for FP compared to other parts of Iran. Moreover, the high prevalence of cancer in this province (24-27) indicates women’s high vulnerability to cancer and potential risk of unintended pregnancy and complications during pregnancy.

Accordingly, this study investigates the prevalence of contraception use and evaluates the role of some demographic, socio-cultural factors, fertility desires, and care providers in contraception use among women of reproductive age who were undergoing cancer treatment in Zahedan, the capital of Sistan and Baluchestan province in Iran. This study makes a significant contribution to research on FP among women suffering from cancer and provides fresh insights into the role of physicians and FP service providers in reducing health-related problems during cancer treatment for women and their children.

2. Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted on female patients of reproductive age (15 - 49 years) who were undergoing cancer treatment. Data were collected in Zahedan, the capital of Sistan and Baluchestan province, southeast Iran. Given the unknown number of women receiving cancer treatment, all eligible female patients with cancer admitted to the three study locations (Imam Ali Hospital, Khatam Hospital, and the office of Dr. Hashemi, an oncologist) from November 2019 to May 2020 were considered. These locations were selected because they are the main centers providing cancer treatment services in Zahedan. Thus, the study population included women from both urban and rural areas who referred to these centers for cancer treatment. Subjects were determined through the convenience sampling method. The inclusion criteria were the ability to conceive, no menopause, and cohabitation with a husband (even periodically). Exclusion criteria included infertility, a diagnosis of cancer leading to the removal of reproductive organs, unwillingness to participate in the interview, and being in very poor physical condition. Finally, 133 out of 185 women who met the inclusion criteria participated in the study.

Regarding data collection, depending on the patient’s situation, the questionnaire was either self-administered or researcher-administered. The data were collected using a researcher-made questionnaire designed by the researchers, consisting of three major parts. The first part was a cover letter describing the objectives of the study and providing necessary information. The second part included questions about the sociocultural and demographic characteristics of the participants. The third part comprised questions about contraception use and knowledge about contraceptives. The content validity test was conducted to confirm the validity of the questionnaire. For this purpose, the designed questionnaire was distributed among three experts in medicine, public health, and sociology to check the accuracy of the questions and the structure of the questionnaire. The content validity score was calculated, and questions with a score of 0.85 and higher were maintained in the questionnaire. The face validity of the questionnaire was confirmed as its main questions were adapted from earlier studies (28, 29). Furthermore, one month before the main study, a pilot study was carried out on 15 women to investigate the reliability of the questionnaire in terms of comprehensibility of the questions for different groups of women and to identify any barriers to data collection. Cronbach’s alpha for all subscales was above 0.75.

After data collection, descriptive and inferential statistics were used. Pearson’s chi-square test was employed to find variations in the use of contraceptives in the three groups. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was also used to understand the major predictors of contraception use. The odds ratio (OR) was measured at a 95% confidence interval (CI). The maximum likelihood method was used to estimate the coefficients of the logistic regression models. “No contraception method” was considered the reference category. All variables with a P-value less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The data were analyzed in SPSS (version 18).

The most important ethical issues observed in this study were informed consent and the voluntary nature of participation. Patients were assured about the confidentiality of their information. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (IR.ZAUMS.REC.1398.218).

3. Results

Figure 1 shows that 66.0% of the respondents used modern contraceptives during the last three months, including the pill (32.0%), male condom (32.0%), and injection (1.5%). Additionally, the traditional method (withdrawal) was used by 23.0% of women, and 11.0% of participants did not use any contraceptives in the last three months. Figure 2 indicates that 37.0% of respondents did not have knowledge about emergency contraception methods. Figure 3 illustrates that only 23.0% of women had their desired number of children, while 58.0% desired to have more children.

Percentage distribution of respondents based on contraception method (N = 133)
Percentage distribution of respondents based on contraception method (N = 133)
Respondents' appropriate knowledge of emergency contraception methods (N = 133)
Respondents' appropriate knowledge of emergency contraception methods (N = 133)
Percentage distribution of respondents based on desired number of children (N = 133)
Percentage distribution of respondents based on desired number of children (N = 133)

3.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Participants and Some Aspects of their Fertility and Health-Related Behaviors

The mean age of participants was 36.11 ± 8.75 years. Table 1 indicates that 46.6% of participants reported an age difference of 3 to 6 years with their husbands. Regarding educational background, 12.0% of the women and 14.0% of their husbands were illiterate. Approximately 77.0% of the interviewees lived in urban areas, while 23.0% resided in rural areas, with the majority (72.0%) being homemakers. Additionally, 16.5% of participants mentioned that their husbands had another wife or other wives. In terms of religion, 49.6% of the women were Shia Muslims, and 50.4% were Sunni Muslims.

Table 1.

Comparison of Contraception Use Based on Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Respondents (N = 133) a

VariablesTotal Current Status of Contraception Use Chi-squareP-Value
WithdrawalModernNo Method
Age group (y)14.710.065
15 - 2411 (8.3)2 (18.2)7 (63.6)2 (18.2)
25 - 2924 (18.0)2 (8.3)20(83.3)2 (8.3)
30 - 3428 (21.1)10 (34.6)17 (61.5)1 (3.8)
35 - 3926 (19.5)9 (34.6)16 (61.5)1 (3.8)
40 - 4423 (17.3)5 (23.1)11 (50.0)7 (26.9)
45 - 4921 (15.8)6 (26.1)14 (67.4)1 (6.5)
Spousal age difference (y)9.540.145
< 331 (23.3)5 (16.1)24 (77.4)2 (6.5)
3 - 662 (46.6)12 (19.4)44 (71.0)6 (9.7)
7 - 1029 (21.8)9 (31.0)15 (51.7)5 (17.2)
> 1011 (8.3)5 (45.5)4 (36.4)2 (18.2)
Education level (y)17.250.008 b
Illiterate16 (12)6 (37.5)8 (50.0)2 (12.5)
1 - 537 (27.8)14 (37.8)17 (45.9)6 (16.2)
6 - 1241 (30.8)9 (22.0)28 (68.3)4 (9.8)
12 +39 (29.3)2 (5.1)34 (87.2)3 (7.7)
Husband’s education level11.740.068
Illiterate19 (14.3)5 (26.3)10 (52.6)4 (21.1)
1 - 535 (26.3)14 (40.0)18 (51.4)3 (8.6)
6 - 1236 (27.1)7 (19.4)26 (72.2)3 (8.3)
12 +43 (32.3)5 (11.6)33 (76.7)5 (11.6)
Occupation4.760.092
Homemaker96 (72.2)27 (28.1)58 (60.4)11 (11.5)
Employee37 (27.8)4 (10.8)29 (78.4)4 (10.8)
Polygamy17.39< 0.001
Yes22 (16.5)10 (45.5)6 (27.3)6 (27.3)
No111 (83.5)21 (18.9)81 (73.0)9 (8.1)
Place of residence0.9970.608
Urban102 (76.7)22 (21.6)69 (67.6)11 (10.8)
Rural31 (23.3)9 (29.0)18 (58.1)4 (12.9)
Religion4.630.099
Muslim (shia)66 (49.6)12 (18.2)49 (74.2)5 (7.6)
Muslim (sunni)67 (50.4)19 (28.4)38 (56.7)10 (14.9)

Table 2 reports selected aspects of patients’ fertility behavior and contraception use. Notably, the desired number of children was high, with 87.2% of the women desiring three or more children. Furthermore, 47.4% and 16.5% of the women did not agree with their husbands about the desired number of children and the contraception method, respectively. Specifically, 45.8% of the women mentioned that their husbands desired more children, and 49.6% expressed their plan for a future pregnancy.

Table 2.

Comparison of Contraception Use Based on Fertility Behavior and Desires (N = 133) a

VariablesTotalCurrent Status of Contraceptive UseChi-squareP-Value
WithdrawalModernNo Method
Number of live children4.660.324
0 - 233 (24.8)5 (15.2)25 (75.8)3 (9.1)
3 - 452 (39.1)11 (21.2)36 (69.2)5 (9.6)
4 +48 (36.1)15 (31.3)26 (54.2)7 (14.6)
Desired number of children17.250.008 b
1 - 217 (12.8)2 (11.8)13 (76.5)2 (11.8)
3 - 458 (43.6)10 (17.2)44 (75.9)4 (6.9)
4 +58 (43.6)19 (32.8)30 (51.7)9 (15.5)
Couple’s agreement on the number of children2.470.071
Yes70 (52.6)14 (20.0)50 (71.4)6 (8.6)
No63 (47.4)17 (27.0)37 (58.7)9 (14.3)
Couple’s agreement on the contraception method9.220.010 b
Yes111 (83.5)24 (21.6)78 (70.3)9 (8.1)
No22 (16.5)7 (31.8)9 (40.9)6 (27.3)
Doctor discussed contraceptives11.120.004 b
Yes71 (53.4)17 (23.9)52 (73.2)2 (2.8)
No62 (46.6)14 (22.6)35 (56.5)13 (21.0)
Intention to become pregnant 0.09120.634
Yes66 (49.6)16 (24.2)41 (62.1)9 (13.6)
No67 (50.4)15 (22.4)46 (68.7)6 (9.0)
Distance from health center (min)16.26< 0.001
< 30 123 (92.5)30 (24.4)83 (67.5)10 (8.1)
30 - 60 10 (7.5)1 (10.0)4 (40.0)5 (50.0)
Distance from pharmacy (min) 2.040.361
< 30 114 (85.7)27 (23.8)75 (65.4)12 (10.8)
30 - 60 19 (14.3)0 (0.0)13 (66.7)6 (33.3)

Regarding accessibility, the majority of participants could reach health centers (92.5%) and pharmacies (85.7%) within less than 30 minutes. Additionally, 46.6% of the patients reported that the physician responsible for their cancer treatment never discussed contraception.

3.2. Comparison of Contraception Methods

As shown in Tables 1, and 2, significant differences in the frequency of contraception methods were observed in relation to several factors. These factors include education level (P = 0.008), polygamy (P = 0.000), desired number of children (P = 0.008), couple’s agreement on the contraception method (P = 0.010), physician consultation about contraception (P = 0.004), and distance from health centers (P = 0.000). Specifically, the highest prevalence of traditional contraception methods and non-use of contraception was found among illiterate women; women with primary education; women living in polygamous families; women desiring to have more than four children; women who did not agree with their husbands about the contraception method; women who did not receive any physician consultation; and women who lived far from health centers (about 30 - 60 minutes).

3.3. Prediction of Contraception Use

The results of the multinomial logistic regression analysis of the main predictors of contraception use are presented in Table 3. There was no significant difference between the predicted and observed models and values, as the P-value of the Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) test was higher than 0.05 (non-significant). We found that two variables—physician consultation (OR = 13.64, 95% CI: 2.13 - 87.32, P = 0.006) and couple’s agreement on contraception method (OR = 9.91, 95% CI: 1.69 - 58.15, P = 0.011)—are the main predictors of using contraception rather than no method. In other words, the likelihood of contraception use versus non-use was significantly higher among women who received contraception consultation and among couples who had agreement on the contraception method.

Table 3.

Determinants of Contraception Use

PredictorsORP-Value95% CI
Age1.0350.6360.910 - 1.17
Spousal age difference0.9860.8280.867 - 1.12
Desired number of children0.8920.6570.537 - 1.48
Number of live children0.9960.9880.565 - 1.75
Distance from health centers0.9600.1040.913 - 1.02
Distance from pharmacy0.9490.0530.901 - 1.10
Respondent's education level
IlliterateBaseline
1 - 50.3420.4050.027 - 4.27
6 - 120.7870.8650.049 - 12.54
12+3.2050.5440.074 - 13.33
Husband's education level
IlliterateBaseline
1 - 50.6980.8220.031 - 15.85
6 - 124.5630.2690.309 - 67.44
12+0.9850.9900.084 - 11.56
Want to be pregnant in future
Yes0.3400.1930.067 - 1.72
NoBaseline
Job
Employed0.7920.8180.109 - 5.74
HomemakerBaseline
Residential Place
Urban1.100.9940.116 - 8.73
RuralBaseline
Consultation with physician about contraception0.0062.13 - 87.32
Yes13.64
NoBaseline
Couple’s agreement on contraception method0.0111.69 - 58.15
Yes9.91
NoBaseline
Couple’s agreement on the number of children0.6820.357 - 4.63
Yes1.28
NoBaseline
Polygamy0.4570.344 - 13.52
YesBaseline
No1.17
Religion0.2870.324 - 4.22
Muslim (shia) 1.32
Muslim (sunni)Baseline

4. Discussion

Despite the critical importance of contraception during cancer treatment, the results of this study indicated that about one out of three women undergoing cancer treatment are at risk of unintended pregnancy. Additionally, around one out of three women revealed they did not have adequate knowledge about emergency contraception methods. Similarly, a study based on the web-based Basel Breast Cancer Database at the University Women's Hospital Basel (Switzerland) found that 42.0% of patients did not use contraception or used an ineffective method (5). Kopeika et al. conducted a study between 2011 and 2013 on women with breast cancer in the UK and found that 66.0% of women at the time of the survey were not using any contraception, and 64.0% of those who did not use contraception did not intend to become pregnant (30). While several studies have demonstrated that a high rate of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurs among withdrawal users (31, 32), we found that a considerable percentage of participants in the present study used the withdrawal method for contraception.

The results of this study revealed that physician consultation about contraception is one of the main predictors of contraception use among women. Moreover, significantly higher rates of withdrawal and non-use of contraception were reported among women who did not receive physician consultation about contraception. However, 46.6% of respondents claimed that the physician responsible for their cancer treatment did not talk to them about contraception. These results align with studies suggesting that women who receive contraception counseling from a physician are more likely to use contraception compared to those who do not seek counseling (33, 34). A qualitative study on women diagnosed with breast cancer in Cape Town, South Africa, also revealed that patients received limited information from healthcare providers about fertility preservation options, contraceptive use, and the impacts of cancer treatment on their future fertility (35). The study by Mody et al. on women with a history of cancer in Athens, Greece, showed that 90% of respondents acknowledged using contraception, with the most common method being condoms. However, 49% of these individuals did not receive specific advice from their healthcare provider about a contraceptive method (36).

A set of various factors can influence receiving consultation on contraception use and fertility. Reports suggest that around the time of cancer diagnosis and treatment, conversations about contraception are less common in clinical settings because care providers primarily focus on treatment, leaving little room for contraception counseling. Additionally, some women may not feel culturally comfortable discussing their sexual relationships and contraception-related issues (36-39).

Education level is another important factor that can affect one's understanding not only of the consequences of pregnancy during cancer, desired number of children, and suitable contraception methods but also the physician’s advice regarding pregnancy and contraception use. Crafton et al. (40) reported that around 50% of oncologists believe their patients do not understand the possibility of pregnancy during treatment. Accordingly, it is critical that care providers pay attention to the demographic and cultural background of patients, offer timely advice about reproductive needs, and highlight the importance of contraception and the risks of pregnancy during treatment. Additionally, it would be helpful if oncologists refer patients to gynecologists to ensure they receive proper contraception methods (5, 34, 41-43).

According to the findings of the present study, the highest rates of withdrawal method and non-use of contraception were reported by illiterate women and those with primary education. Generally, couples with lower levels of education are less likely to be aware of contraceptives and the complications of pregnancy during cancer treatment. Therefore, the rate of contraception use is lower and the tendency toward traditional contraceptives is higher among them. This finding is in line with the results of another study in Sistan and Baluchestan province (29), but in contrast to those reported by Erfani and Yuksel-Kaptanoglu (44) and Asadi Sarvestani and Khoo (45), which found that the prevalence of traditional contraceptives was higher among women with tertiary education compared to women with elementary education.

In line with another study (29), the results showed that the desired number of children was another effective factor in contraception use. The desire to have more children indicates that women were less interested in using contraception, particularly modern methods. Additionally, older women and women with lower education expressed the desire to have more children. As most participants (87.0%) in this study desired to have more than two children, and around 60.0% of respondents had fewer than their desired number of children, care providers should pay enough attention to this factor during counseling sessions.

Polygamy was another important factor, as the highest rates of withdrawal use and non-use of contraceptives were reported among women whose husbands had one or more other wives. This finding is consistent with other studies, which suggest lower rates of contraception use among women in polygamous families compared to their peers in monogamous relationships (46). The lower rate of contraception and the higher tendency toward using the withdrawal method are mainly because fertility is regarded as a source of power for women in polygamous families in Sistan and Baluchestan province. Moreover, polygamy is more widespread among people with a lower level of education, which is also one of the effective factors in contraception use.

In summary, couples’ agreement about the contraception method was another predictor of contraception use and its type. The highest rate of contraception use and modern contraceptive use were reported among women who agreed with their husbands about contraception methods. This finding is consistent with previous studies, which found a significant relationship between contraception use and the couple’s agreement about contraception methods. It is documented that women whose husbands agree with contraception use are more likely to embrace a modern contraceptive method compared to women whose husbands disapprove of contraception (47, 48).

Distance from health centers also showed a significant relationship with contraception use. About 91.9% of the studied women who lived close to a health center (less than 30 minutes away) protected themselves from pregnancy by using modern and traditional methods, while only half of those who were 30 to 60 minutes away from the health centers used birth control methods. These results highlight the vital role of health centers in providing contraceptives and related knowledge. However, it should be noted that this study was conducted before recent limitations in access to FPs. Specifically, since 2012, Iran officially changed its population policy from anti-natalist to pro-natalist (49, 50). Based on the new population policy, free FPs stopped and access to contraceptives became limited to increase fertility rates (29-31).

Until the summer of 2020, certain groups such as women with specific diseases, women under age 18 and over 40, women with a child below 3 years of age, women with a history of four cesarean sections, as well as poor women and those living in regions above the replacement rate had free access to FPs (49-51). Moreover, until the approval of “The Youthful Population and Protection of the Family Law” in 2021, pills and condoms were accessible via pharmacies at an affordable price for the majority of the population (49). Since 2021, based on the aforementioned law, the free distribution of contraceptives stopped, and access to contraceptives is now subject to a doctor’s prescription (52).

In addition, before these changes in population policy, local health centers (Khaneh Behdasht in Persian) played an essential role in providing FPs, particularly in rural areas. In many rural areas of Iran, these centers were the only sources of access to contraceptives and acquiring knowledge about birth control (53-55). Therefore, policymakers should be careful about the consequences of changes in access to FPs for women’s health and their children. Furthermore, the health care system should pay more attention to women with certain diseases such as cancer, particularly those from disadvantaged socioeconomic groups who live in rural areas and less developed places.

4.1. Conclusions

Overall, the results of this study indicate that contraception use is affected by a range of sociocultural and accessibility factors. Accordingly, care providers should pay attention to these factors and inform female patients with cancer about the importance of contraception use during cancer treatment. Women with lower education levels, those who live in polygamous families, and those in less developed areas need more support in this regard. Meanwhile, supporting all women during illness in terms of FP and reproductive health services requires establishing a coherent and strong communication network between care providers, FP providers, and couples.

Acknowledgements

References

  • 1.

    Almualm MYK, Khamis Y. Knowledge, attitude and practice of husbands towards modern family planning in Mukalla, Yemen. Malaysian: University Sains Malaysia; 2007.

  • 2.

    Cleland J, Conde-Agudelo A, Peterson H, Ross J, Tsui A. Contracep Health. Lancet. 2012;380(9837):149-56. [PubMed ID: 22784533]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60609-6.

  • 3.

    Starbird E, Norton M, Marcus R. Investing in Family Planning: Key to Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(2):191-210. [PubMed ID: 27353614]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4982245]. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-15-00374.

  • 4.

    Hodgson DC, Pintilie M, Gitterman L, Dewitt B, Buckley CA, Ahmed S, et al. Fertility among female hodgkin lymphoma survivors attempting pregnancy following ABVD chemotherapy. Hematol Oncol. 2007;25(1):11-5. [PubMed ID: 17036376]. https://doi.org/10.1002/hon.802.

  • 5.

    Guth U, Huang DJ, Bitzer J, Moffat R. Unintended pregnancy during the first year after breast cancer diagnosis. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21(4):290-4. [PubMed ID: 27227578]. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2016.1180678.

  • 6.

    Mitwally MF. Fertility preservation and minimizing reproductive damage in cancer survivors. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007;7(7):989-1001. [PubMed ID: 17627459]. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.7.7.989.

  • 7.

    Laurence V, Gbolade BA, Morgan SJ, Glaser A. Contraception for teenagers and young adults with cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2004;40(18):2705-16. [PubMed ID: 15571952]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2004.09.003.

  • 8.

    Helewa M, Levesque P, Provencher D, Lea RH, Rosolowich V, Shapiro HM, et al. Breast cancer, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002;24(2):164-80. quiz 181-4. [PubMed ID: 12196882].

  • 9.

    Rimes S, Gano J, Milbourne A. Care of the pregnant patient with cancer. Oncol (Williston Park). 2008;22(8 Suppl Nurse Ed):13-22. [PubMed ID: 19856566].

  • 10.

    Bader AA, Schlembach D, Tamussino KF, Pristauz G, Petru E. Anhydramnios associated with administration of trastuzumab and paclitaxel for metastatic breast cancer during pregnancy. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(1):79-81. [PubMed ID: 17196514]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(06)71014-2.

  • 11.

    Koren G, Carey N, Gagnon R, Maxwell C, Nulman I, Senikas V. RETIRED: Cancer chemotherapy and pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(3):263-78. [PubMed ID: 23470115]. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30999-3.

  • 12.

    Green DM, Whitton JA, Stovall M, Mertens AC, Donaldson SS, Ruymann FB, et al. Pregnancy outcome of female survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(4):1070-80. [PubMed ID: 12389007]. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.126643.

  • 13.

    Mody SK, Panelli DM, Hulugalle A, Su HI, Gorman JR. Contraception concerns, utilization and counseling needs of women with a history of breast cancer: a qualitative study. Int J Womens Health. 2017;9:507-12. [PubMed ID: 28790868]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5531568]. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWH.S136120.

  • 14.

    Vardanjani HM, Baneshi MR, Haghdoost A. Total and Partial Prevalence of Cancer Across Kerman Province, Iran, in 2014, Using an Adapted Generalized Network Scale-Up Method. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16(13):5493-8. [PubMed ID: 26225700]. https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.13.5493.

  • 15.

    Danaei M, Haghdoost A, Momeni M. An epidemiological review of common cancers in Iran; a review article. Iran J Blood Cancer. 2019;11(3):77-84.

  • 16.

    Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends--An Update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016;25(1):16-27. [PubMed ID: 26667886]. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0578.

  • 17.

    Yousefi M, Jalilian H, Heydari S, Seyednejad F, Mir N. Cost of Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review. Value Health Reg Issues. 2023;33:17-26. [PubMed ID: 36201970]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2022.07.007.

  • 18.

    Kazeminia M, Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Akbari H, Bazrafshan M, Mohammadi M. The prevalence of breast cancer in Iranian women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Gynecologic Oncol. 2022;20(1):14.

  • 19.

    Biranvandzadeh M, Heshmati JM, Sorkhkamal K. Assessment of development level of Sistan and Baluchistan province compared to other Iran’s provinces. Int J Architecture Urban Dev. 2015;5(1):69-76.

  • 20.

    Moudi Z, Ghazi Tabatabaie M, Mahdi Tabatabaei S, Vedadhir A. Safe Delivery Posts: an intervention to provide equitable childbirth care services to vulnerable groups in Zahedan, Iran. Midwifery. 2014;30(10):1073-81. [PubMed ID: 23866686]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2013.06.011.

  • 21.

    Iran Statistical Center. Census of population and housing of Iran. Tehran, Iran: Statistical Center; 2017. Available from: https://amar.org.ir/en.

  • 22.

    Sargolzaie N, Kiani M, Dehghan Haghighi J, Sargazi S. Determinants of Fertility Patterns in Zahedan, Southeast Iran, 2015. Health Scope. 2016;6(3). e15117. https://doi.org/10.5812/jhealthscope.15117.

  • 23.

    Sayehmiri K, Ebtekar F, Zarei M, Gheshlagh RG. Prevalence of unwanted pregnancy among Iranian women: an updated meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):491. [PubMed ID: 31829158]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6907188]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2640-9.

  • 24.

    Rafiemanesh H, Mehtarpoor M, Mohammadian-Hafshejani A, Salehiniya H, Enayatrad M, Khazaei S. Cancer epidemiology and trends in Sistan and Baluchestan province, Iran. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2015;29:254. [PubMed ID: 26793645]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC4715419].

  • 25.

    Nafissi N, Khayamzadeh M, Zeinali Z, Pazooki D, Hosseini M, Akbari ME. Epidemiology and Histopathology of Breast Cancer in Iran versus Other Middle Eastern Countries. Middle East J Cancer. 2018;9(3):243-51. https://doi.org/10.30476/mejc.2018.42130.

  • 26.

    Mohammad Ali M, Kazem N, Ali Reza B, Tahere Fajharian T, Ali Reza Ansari M. High Prevalence of Esophageal Cancer in South East of Iran. Int J Hematol-Oncol Stem Cell Res. 1970;5(4).

  • 27.

    Dehbashi I, Shahraki I, Khani Y, Jafardokht Bonjar H. Epidemiology of Breast Cancer in Zahedan City. 13th International Congress on Breast Cancer. Tehran, Iran. International Congress on Breast Cancer; 2017.

  • 28.

    Rahman H, Khalda E, Kar S, Kharka L, Bhutia GP. Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and barriers to the practice of emergency contraception among women in Sikkim, India. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;122(2):99-103. [PubMed ID: 23747150]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.03.016.

  • 29.

    Asadi Sarvestani K, Hasanifar A, Bagheri R. Some Determinants of Contraceptive Use Among Women of Reproductive Age Who Have Children with Thalassemia Major in Sistan and Baluchestan Province, Iran. Women’s Health Bulletin. 2019;6(2):1-7.

  • 30.

    Kopeika J, Bhaduri M, Kugadas A, Reddy N, Shewbridge A, Mukherji D, et al. Planned and unplanned pregnancies in breast cancer survivors. Breast. 2019;46:75-80. [PubMed ID: 31100574]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.05.004.

  • 31.

    Erfani A. Induced abortion in Tehran, Iran: estimated rates and correlates. Int Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;37(3):134-42. [PubMed ID: 21988789]. https://doi.org/10.1363/3713411.

  • 32.

    Asadi Sarvestani K, Ahmadi A, Enayat H, Movahed M. Level and Factors Related to Unintended Pregnancy with a Brief Review of New Population Policies in Iran. Iran J Public Health. 2017;46(7):973-81. [PubMed ID: 28845409]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5563880].

  • 33.

    Mitwally MF. Management of reproductive needs in cancer patients: clinical perspectives. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2008;8(10):1589-95. [PubMed ID: 18925851]. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737140.8.10.1589.

  • 34.

    Murphy D, Klosky JL, Termuhlen A, Sawczyn KK, Quinn GP. The need for reproductive and sexual health discussions with adolescent and young adult cancer patients. Contracep. 2013;88(2):215-20. [PubMed ID: 23040131]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.08.041.

  • 35.

    Harries J, Constant D, Cairncross L, Moodley J. Contraceptive needs and fertility intentions of women with breast cancer in Cape Town, South Africa: a qualitative study. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):224. [PubMed ID: 33023554]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC7539427]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-01094-3.

  • 36.

    Mody SK, Gorman JR, Oakley LP, Layton T, Parker BA, Panelli D. Contraceptive utilization and counseling among breast cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2019;13(3):438-46. [PubMed ID: 31065953]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC6561485]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-019-00765-x.

  • 37.

    Ussher JM, Perz J, Metusela C, Hawkey AJ, Morrow M, Narchal R, et al. Negotiating Discourses of Shame, Secrecy, and Silence: Migrant and Refugee Women's Experiences of Sexual Embodiment. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46(7):1901-21. [PubMed ID: 28083724]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5547186]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0898-9.

  • 38.

    Merghaty Khoei E, Richters J. Concepts of sexuality and health among Iranian women in Australia. Aust Fam Physician. 2008;37(3):190-2. [PubMed ID: 18345373].

  • 39.

    Quinn GP, Vadaparampil ST, King L, Miree CA, Wilson C, Raj O, et al. Impact of physicians' personal discomfort and patient prognosis on discussion of fertility preservation with young cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;77(3):338-43. [PubMed ID: 19796912]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2009.09.007.

  • 40.

    Crafton SM, Lynch CD, Cohn DE, Eisenhauer EL. Reproductive counseling, contraception, and unplanned pregnancy in fertile women treated by gynecologic oncologists. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017;19:22-6. [PubMed ID: 28018956]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5173313]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2016.11.006.

  • 41.

    Gorman JR, Usita PM, Madlensky L, Pierce JP. Young breast cancer survivors: their perspectives on treatment decisions and fertility concerns. Cancer Nurs. 2011;34(1):32-40. [PubMed ID: 20697269]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC2980796]. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181e4528d.

  • 42.

    Koren G. Fetal risks of maternal pharmacotherapy: identifying signals. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2011;205:285-94. [PubMed ID: 21882117]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20195-0_14.

  • 43.

    Greydanus DE, Pratt HD, Patel DR. Concepts of contraception for adolescent and young adult women with chronic illness and disability. Dis Mon. 2012;58(5):258-320. [PubMed ID: 22510362]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disamonth.2012.02.001.

  • 44.

    Erfani A, Yuksel-Kaptanoglu I. The use of withdrawal among birth limiters in Iran and Turkey. Stud Fam Plann. 2012;43(1):21-32. [PubMed ID: 23185869]. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2012.00299.x.

  • 45.

    Asadi Sarvestani K, Khoo S. Determinants of Withdrawal Use as a Contraception Method and its Impact on Sexual Satisfaction: Case Study of Shiraz County- Iran. J Midwifery Reprod Health. 2019;7(2):1641-9. https://doi.org/10.22038/jmrh.2019.31031.1335.

  • 46.

    Baschieri A, Cleland J, Floyd S, Dube A, Msona A, Molesworth A, et al. Reproductive preferences and contraceptive use: a comparison of monogamous and polygamous couples in northern Malawi. J Biosoc Sci. 2013;45(2):145-66. [PubMed ID: 23168093]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC3566591]. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932012000569.

  • 47.

    Bankole A, Audam S. Fertility preferences and contraceptive use among couples in sub-Saharan Africa. African Popul Stud. 2011;25(2).

  • 48.

    Esber A, Foraker RE, Hemed M, Norris A. Partner approval and intention to use contraception among Zanzibari women presenting for post-abortion care. Contraception. 2014;90(1):23-8. [PubMed ID: 24809805]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.03.006.

  • 49.

    Erfani A. Curbing publicly-funded family planning services in Iran: who is affected? J Fam Plan Reprod Health Care. 2017;1(43):37-43. [PubMed ID: 28007820].

  • 50.

    Ladier-Fouladi M. The Islamic Republic of Iran’s new population policy and recent changes in fertility. Iran Stud. 2021;54(5-6):907-30.

  • 51.

    Sangi A. [Guidelines of the new population policy]. Fars News Agency; 2013. Persian. Available from: http://www.farsnews.com/printable.php.

  • 52.

    Islamic Parliament Research Center. [The Youthful Population and Protection of the Family Law]. Islamic Parliament Research Center; 2021. Persian. Available from: https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/1678266.

  • 53.

    Roudi-Fahimi F, Gupta Y, Swain P, Ram F, Singh A, Agrawal P. Iran's family planning program: responding to a nation's needs. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau; 2002. Available from: https://www.prb.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IransFamPlanProg_Eng.pdf.

  • 54.

    Aghajanian A, Mehryar AH, Ahmadnia S, Kazemipour S. Impact of rural health development programme in the Islamic Republic of Iran on rural-urban disparities in health indicators. East Mediterr Health J. 2007;13(6):1466-75. [PubMed ID: 18341196]. https://doi.org/10.26719/2007.13.6.1466.

  • 55.

    Foroutan Y. Social change and demographic response in Iran (1956–2006). British J Middle Eastern Stud. 2014;41(2):219-29.