Background In the fall of 2007, the controversy about the contraceptive use of depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) and its potential impact on skeletal health reached the media in the province of Quebec, Canada, thereby becoming a matter of concern for the lay public and physicians. In order to discuss this subject openly, the National Institute of Public Health of Quebec (INSPQ) organized a scientific meeting on February 15, 2008, with targeted physicians delegated by their medical associations in the fields of general practice, obstetrics and gynaecology, rheumatology, orthopaedic surgery, physiatry and endocrinology. Study Design Participants reviewed the scientific literature using the study classification method according to the level of evidence, reviewed published guidelines of medical societies and organizations on the subject and reached a consensus position. This manuscript presents a review of the literature and describes the consensus position of the targeted medical associations. Results The consensus position adopted by all the targeted medical associations determined that DMPA was a cost-effective contraceptive option that must be considered in the light of the clinical situation and preference of each woman. Candidates for injectable contraception should be informed that the use of DMPA is associated with a slight decrease in bone mineral density (BMD), which is largely, if not completely, reversible. There should not be an absolute limit to the length of time that the DMPA contraceptive is used, regardless of the woman's age. Monitoring BMD is not recommended among users of DMPA for contraceptive purposes. Finally, the consensus statement declared that, although supplements of calcium and vitamin D are beneficial for skeletal health for women in general, such supplementation should not be recommended solely based on a woman's use of DMPA. Conclusion Given the scientific evidences, DMPA use remains a valid contraceptive option for women. Its potential impact on BMD must be balanced against the significant individual, familial and social consequences of unintended pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE:To provide evidence-based guidance for women and their health care providers on the management of missed or delayed hormonal contraceptive doses in order to prevent unintended pregnancy.EVIDENCE:Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles published in English, from 1974 to 2007, about hormonal contraceptive methods that are available in Canada and that may be missed or delayed. Relevant publications and position papers from appropriate reproductive health and family planning organizations were also reviewed. The quality of evidence is rated using the criteria developed by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS:This committee opinion will help health care providers offer clear information to women who have not been adherent in using hormonal contraception with the purpose of preventing unintended pregnancy.SPONSORS:The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: 1. Instructions for what women should do when they miss hormonal contraception have been complex and women do not understand them correctly. (I) 2. The highest risk of ovulation occurs when the hormone-free interval is prolonged for more than seven days, either by delaying the start of combined hormonal contraceptives or by missing active hormone doses during the first or third weeks of combined oral contraceptives. (II) Ovulation rarely occurs after seven consecutive days of combined oral contraceptive use. (II) RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Health care providers should give clear, simple instructions, both written and oral, on missed hormonal contraceptive pills as part of contraceptive counselling. (III-A) 2. Health care providers should provide women with telephone/electronic resources for reference in the event of missed or delayed hormonal contraceptives. (III-A) 3. In order to avoid an increased risk of unintended pregnancy, the hormone-free interval should not exceed seven days in combined hormonal contraceptive users. (II-A) 4. Back-up contraception should be used after one missed dose in the first week of hormones until seven consecutive days of correct hormone use are established. In the case of missed combined hormonal contraceptives in the second or third week of hormones, the hormone-free interval should be eliminated for that cycle. (III-A) 5. Emergency contraception and back-up contraception may be required in some instances of missed hormonal contraceptives, in particular when the hormone-free interval has been extended for more than seven days. (III-A) 6. Back-up contraception should be used when three or more consecutive doses/days of combined hormonal contraceptives are missed in the second and third week until seven consecutive days of correct hormone use are established. For practical reasons, the scheduled hormone-free interval should be eliminated in these cases. (II-A) 7. Emergency contraception is rarely indicated for missed combined hormonal contraceptives in the second or third week of the cycle unless there are repeated omissions or failure to institute back-up contraception after the missed doses. In cases of repeated omissions of combined hormonal contraceptives, emergency contraception may be required, and back-up contraception should be used. Health care professionals should counsel women in these situations on alternative methods of contraception that do not demand such stringent compliance. (III-A).