Outcomes for Women Denied Postpartum Tubal Ligation During the Initial COVID-19 Surge

Lauren Cosgriff, Melissa Plummer, Gabrielle Concepcion, Antoinette A. Danvers
{"title":"Outcomes for Women Denied Postpartum Tubal Ligation During the Initial COVID-19 Surge","authors":"Lauren Cosgriff, Melissa Plummer, Gabrielle Concepcion, Antoinette A. Danvers","doi":"10.1089/whr.2023.0142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate the utilization and outcomes of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (PPLARC) following unmet postpartum bilateral tubal ligation (PPBTL) requests during a time in which elective surgeries were canceled due to the initial COVID-19 surge. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study using an embedded design. Using a retrospective cohort design, we collected data from patients seeking PPBTL following vaginal delivery between March 15, 2020, and June 20, 2020; this reflects a time period during which elective surgery was canceled thus making PPBTL unavailable. We recorded demographic data, method of contraception at time of discharge and 18 months postpartum, and incidence of interval pregnancy at 18 months postpartum. Additionally, we conducted five semistructured interviews to gain deeper insights into patient experiences with PPLARC as a bridge method. Results: Forty-five patients had unfilled PPBTL requests with follow-up data available for 35. The median age was 34 years. Ten (22%) accepted PPLARC as a bridge to interval bilateral tubal ligation (BTL). At the 18-month mark, only 1 out of 7 (14.3%) PPLARC users had undergone an interval BTL procedure, compared to 11 out of 28 (39.3%) nonusers. None of the PPLARC users experienced pregnancies, while 6 out of 28 (21.6%) nonusers became pregnant. Qualitative interviews underscored themes such as inadequate counseling preparation for unmet PPBTL requests and persistent barriers to BTL access. Conclusions: Raising awareness of unmet PPBTL risks may drive greater adoption of PPLARC as a bridge method. While not a substitution for PPTBL, PPLARC provides a reliable form of interval contraception for patients seeking to delay pregnancy. It is essential to recognize that patient security with PPLARC's contraceptive efficacy may introduce delays in achieving the desired interval sterilization. Enhancing antenatal counseling on contraception options and providing transparency regarding barriers to sterilization could mitigate the challenges associated with unmet PPBTL requests.","PeriodicalId":509978,"journal":{"name":"Women's Health Reports","volume":"237 ","pages":"352 - 357"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's Health Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/whr.2023.0142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the utilization and outcomes of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (PPLARC) following unmet postpartum bilateral tubal ligation (PPBTL) requests during a time in which elective surgeries were canceled due to the initial COVID-19 surge. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study using an embedded design. Using a retrospective cohort design, we collected data from patients seeking PPBTL following vaginal delivery between March 15, 2020, and June 20, 2020; this reflects a time period during which elective surgery was canceled thus making PPBTL unavailable. We recorded demographic data, method of contraception at time of discharge and 18 months postpartum, and incidence of interval pregnancy at 18 months postpartum. Additionally, we conducted five semistructured interviews to gain deeper insights into patient experiences with PPLARC as a bridge method. Results: Forty-five patients had unfilled PPBTL requests with follow-up data available for 35. The median age was 34 years. Ten (22%) accepted PPLARC as a bridge to interval bilateral tubal ligation (BTL). At the 18-month mark, only 1 out of 7 (14.3%) PPLARC users had undergone an interval BTL procedure, compared to 11 out of 28 (39.3%) nonusers. None of the PPLARC users experienced pregnancies, while 6 out of 28 (21.6%) nonusers became pregnant. Qualitative interviews underscored themes such as inadequate counseling preparation for unmet PPBTL requests and persistent barriers to BTL access. Conclusions: Raising awareness of unmet PPBTL risks may drive greater adoption of PPLARC as a bridge method. While not a substitution for PPTBL, PPLARC provides a reliable form of interval contraception for patients seeking to delay pregnancy. It is essential to recognize that patient security with PPLARC's contraceptive efficacy may introduce delays in achieving the desired interval sterilization. Enhancing antenatal counseling on contraception options and providing transparency regarding barriers to sterilization could mitigate the challenges associated with unmet PPBTL requests.
在 COVID-19 最初涌入期间被拒绝进行产后输卵管结扎手术的妇女的结果
目的评估在 COVID-19 初期激增而取消择期手术期间,未满足产后双侧输卵管结扎术 (PPBTL) 要求的产后长效可逆避孕药 (PPLARC) 的使用情况和结果。方法:我们采用嵌入式设计进行了一项混合方法研究。我们采用回顾性队列设计,收集了 2020 年 3 月 15 日至 2020 年 6 月 20 日期间阴道分娩后寻求 PPBTL 的患者的数据;这一时期的择期手术被取消,因此无法使用 PPBTL。我们记录了人口统计学数据、出院时和产后 18 个月的避孕方法以及产后 18 个月的间歇性妊娠发生率。此外,我们还进行了五次半结构式访谈,以深入了解患者使用 PPLARC 作为桥接方法的经历。结果:45名患者的PPBTL申请未得到满足,其中35名患者的随访数据可用。年龄中位数为 34 岁。10名患者(22%)接受了 PPLARC 作为间歇性双侧输卵管结扎术(BTL)的过渡方法。在 18 个月时,7 名 PPLARC 使用者中只有 1 人(14.3%)接受了间歇性双侧输卵管结扎术,而 28 名未使用 PPLARC 者中有 11 人(39.3%)接受了间歇性双侧输卵管结扎术。没有一个使用过 PPLARC 的人怀孕,而 28 个未使用 PPLARC 的人中有 6 个(21.6%)怀孕了。定性访谈强调了一些主题,如未满足 PPBTL 要求的咨询准备不足,以及获得 BTL 的持续障碍。结论:提高对未满足 PPBTL 风险的认识可能会促使更多的人采用 PPLARC 作为过渡方法。虽然 PPLARC 不能替代 PPTBL,但它为寻求推迟怀孕的患者提供了一种可靠的间隔避孕方式。必须认识到,患者对 PPLARC 避孕效果的安全感可能会延误实现预期的间隔绝育。加强有关避孕选择的产前咨询,提高绝育障碍方面的透明度,可以减轻与未满足 PPBTL 要求相关的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信