A thematic analysis of the perceptions of reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance as a potential family planning method in the United Kingdom.

IF 0.8 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Urologia Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1177/03915603241261813
Cristina M Gheorghe, Olivia Slack, Amanda D Wilson
{"title":"A thematic analysis of the perceptions of reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance as a potential family planning method in the United Kingdom.","authors":"Cristina M Gheorghe, Olivia Slack, Amanda D Wilson","doi":"10.1177/03915603241261813","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This exploratory study aimed to look into public perceptions of Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance (RISUG) as a family planning method in the United Kingdom (UK). It also aimed to discover if there were any sex differences in perceptions between males and females.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted, six with males and six with females, all residents of the UK.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The audio data from the interviews then was transcribed for analysis. An inductive and a semantic thematic analysis was conducted on the data set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three main themes were constructed, including: (i) RISUG Hesitancy, (ii) Females perceived benefits of RISUG and (iii) Males perceived concerns regarding RISUG. Hesitancy was related to vaccination hesitancy, females wanted males to have more reproductive autonomy and males placed their concerns through the lens of 'other' males that their may be unintended side effects. Together these three themes represent both perceived risk and overall benefits of the method. However, while randomized control trails have been completed to standard for RISUG, males perceived concerns, suggesting a disconnect between the public's perceptions and professionals understanding of trails.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RISUG was perceived as a viable option for family planning in the future, however trust of the new contraceptive method will need to be fostered among the public in order to effectively transfer knowledge on the potential side effects and the standard of pre-market testing for these. Effective public health messages can result in better education of people concerning the new contraceptive method, including the risks and benefits. By using perceptions to inform health messages around RISUG, researchers and practitioners can learn from potential users how to best address misinformation or concerns, while at the same time building an evidence base for when new male methods reach the contraceptive market.</p>","PeriodicalId":23574,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Journal","volume":" ","pages":"819-823"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11484156/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603241261813","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This exploratory study aimed to look into public perceptions of Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance (RISUG) as a family planning method in the United Kingdom (UK). It also aimed to discover if there were any sex differences in perceptions between males and females.

Design: Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted, six with males and six with females, all residents of the UK.

Methods: The audio data from the interviews then was transcribed for analysis. An inductive and a semantic thematic analysis was conducted on the data set.

Results: Three main themes were constructed, including: (i) RISUG Hesitancy, (ii) Females perceived benefits of RISUG and (iii) Males perceived concerns regarding RISUG. Hesitancy was related to vaccination hesitancy, females wanted males to have more reproductive autonomy and males placed their concerns through the lens of 'other' males that their may be unintended side effects. Together these three themes represent both perceived risk and overall benefits of the method. However, while randomized control trails have been completed to standard for RISUG, males perceived concerns, suggesting a disconnect between the public's perceptions and professionals understanding of trails.

Conclusion: RISUG was perceived as a viable option for family planning in the future, however trust of the new contraceptive method will need to be fostered among the public in order to effectively transfer knowledge on the potential side effects and the standard of pre-market testing for these. Effective public health messages can result in better education of people concerning the new contraceptive method, including the risks and benefits. By using perceptions to inform health messages around RISUG, researchers and practitioners can learn from potential users how to best address misinformation or concerns, while at the same time building an evidence base for when new male methods reach the contraceptive market.

对英国将指导下可逆性抑制精子作为一种潜在计划生育方法的看法的专题分析。
背景:这项探索性研究旨在调查英国(UK)公众对可逆性精子抑制指导法(RISUG)作为一种计划生育方法的看法。研究还旨在发现男性和女性在认识上是否存在性别差异:设计:进行了 12 次半结构式访谈,其中 6 次为男性访谈,6 次为女性访谈,访谈对象均为英国居民:然后对访谈的音频数据进行转录分析。对数据集进行了归纳和语义主题分析:结果:共构建了三个主题,包括:(i) RISUG 犹豫不决;(ii) 女性认为 RISUG 有益;(iii) 男性认为 RISUG 有忧。犹豫不决与疫苗接种犹豫不决有关,女性希望男性有更多的生育自主权,而男性则从 "其他 "男性的角度来考虑他们的担忧,即他们可能会有意想不到的副作用。这三个主题共同代表了该方法的可感知风险和总体益处。然而,尽管 RISUG 已完成了符合标准的随机对照试验,但男性仍有顾虑,这表明公众的看法与专业人员对试验的理解之间存在脱节:RISUG被认为是未来计划生育的一个可行选择,但还需要提高公众对这种新避孕方法的信任度,以便有效传播有关潜在副作用和上市前测试标准的知识。有效的公共卫生信息可以使人们更好地了解新的避孕方法,包括其风险和益处。研究人员和从业人员可以利用人们对 RISUG 的认知来传播健康信息,从而从潜在用户那里了解如何最有效地消除误导或担忧,同时为新的男性避孕方法进入避孕市场建立证据基础。
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
Urologia Journal
Urologia Journal UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
66
×
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