Contraceptive sterilization among married adults: national data on who chooses vasectomy and tubal sterilization
ABSTRACT Vasectomy has been found to be a highly cost-effective contraceptive method. For couples, tubal sterilization and vasectomy have the same result, but the two methods are used by different segments of the population.
We conducted an analysis of data from male and female samples of the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth, nationally representative samples of men and women in the United States aged 15-44 years.
Among married men, 13.1% reported vasectomies (95% confidence interval 10.4%-16.3%), compared to 21.1% (17.8%-24.9%) of married women who reported tubal sterilizations. Men with higher education and income had greater prevalence of vasectomy than those less educated, while women with lower education and income had the highest prevalence of tubal sterilization.
Efforts to promote vasectomy use need to understand the reasons behind these differences. Increasing the availability and use of vasectomy will require education about its benefits.
- SourceAvailable from: Hector O Chapa[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine patient preference for laparoscopic tubal occlusion or hysteroscopic tubal occlusion, two common sterilization interventions, and the acceptability of a postprocedure confirmation test for a hysteroscopic approach. A total of 100 patients were offered two procedures. A description of each procedure was developed and read to each patient by a research nurse on site. Patients were then asked to respond to a questionnaire concerning options. Final informed consent, procedure review, and procedural date determination were provided by a physician upon completion of the questionnaire. Patients were not allowed to change their questionnaire responses after completion. No interviewer or physician input was allowed during the questionnaire. The study was completed in English or Spanish, as per patient request, by a bilingual/fluent speaker. Physicians completing informed consent were unaware of the questionnaire responses. Patients were not financially incentivized. Of 100 participants, 93 (93%) preferred hysteroscopic sterilization to laparoscopy. The reasons were as follows: fear of general anesthesia (24/93 [26%]), fear of incision (25/93 [27%]), cost (32/93 [34%]), and time (12/93 [13%]) to return to routine activity. All 93 viewed "office-based location" as the main advantage over laparoscopy; 88/93 (94.6%) considered a confirmation test to be a benefit of the procedure. After informed consent was obtained, one additional patient switched from a laparoscopic decision to hysteroscopy (total = 94/100); 89/94 (95%) hysteroscopic decisions underwent hysteroscopic sterilization; 4/6 (67%) laparoscopic decisions proceeded to that surgery. The remainder (N = 7) cancelled due to lack of financial resources. A nonincisional, office-based approach to sterilization has high patient acceptability. Patients viewed a confirmatory test for tubal occlusion as a benefit after sterilization.Patient Preference and Adherence 04/2012; 6:331-6. DOI:10.2147/PPA.S30247 · 1.49 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective: Cross-sectional studies have found that low-income and racial/ethnic minority women are more likely to use female sterilization and less likely to rely on a partner’s vasectomy than women with higher incomes and whites. However, studies of pregnant and postpartum women report that racial/ethnic minorities, particularly low-income minority women, face greater barriers in obtaining a sterilization than do whites and those with higher incomes. In this paper, we address this apparent contradiction by examining the likelihood a woman gets a sterilization following each delivery, which removes from the comparison any difference in the number of births she has experienced. Study Design: Using the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth, we fit multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox regression models to estimate odds ratios and hazard ratios for getting a postpartum or interval sterilization, respectively, according to race/ethnicity and insurance status. Results: Women’s chances of obtaining a sterilization varied by both race/ethnicity and insurance. Among women with Medicaid, whites were more likely to use female sterilization than African Americans and Latinas. Privately insured whites were more likely to rely on vasectomy than African Americans and Latinas, but among women with Medicaid-paid deliveries reliance on vasectomy was low for all racial/ethnic groups. Conclusions: Low-income racial/ethnic minority women are less likely to undergo sterilization following delivery compared to low-income whites and privately insured women of similar parities. This could result from unique barriers to obtaining permanent contraception and could expose women to the risk of future unintended pregnancies. Implications Low-income minorities are less likely to undergo sterilization than low-income whites and privately insured minorities, which may result from barriers to obtaining permanent contraception, and exposes women to unintended pregnancies.Contraception 01/2013; 89(6). DOI:10.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.019 · 2.93 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Case-control and cohort studies are almost always complicated by nonrandom exposure allocation, which must be minimized in the design and analysis phases. Tubal sterilization is a common gynecological procedure that may be associated with other reproductive organ surgeries, which in turn may be associated with breast cancer risk. In this issue of the Journal, Gaudet et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2013;000(00)000-000) argue successfully that tubal sterilization is unassociated with breast cancer risk. Scrutiny of the heterogeneous studies included in their meta-analysis underscores the role of confounding and effect modification in observational epidemiologic studies. Specifically, tubal sterilization is unassociated with breast cancer risk, but either oophorectomy or hysterectomy, or both, and the timing of these procedures warrant careful consideration in the design, analysis, and interpretation of observational research on reproductive factors.American journal of epidemiology 02/2013; 177(6). DOI:10.1093/aje/kws438 · 4.98 Impact Factor