Contraceptive risk events among family planning specialists: a cross sectional study

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Taylor N. Weckstein, Rebecca G. Simmons, Jami Baayd, Kathryn E. Fay
{"title":"Contraceptive risk events among family planning specialists: a cross sectional study","authors":"Taylor N. Weckstein, Rebecca G. Simmons, Jami Baayd, Kathryn E. Fay","doi":"10.1186/s12978-024-01870-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Proponents of abortion restriction cite advancements in contraceptive technology as a reason against the need for abortion care today, most recently through oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. However, consistent and correct use of contraception requires reproductive health literacy. Our objectives were to quantify contraceptive risk events and assess contraceptive history and preferences among a population well-equipped to evade contraceptive risks, family planning specialists following initiation of their medical training. “Risk events” are defined as reported episodes of contraceptive failure, emergency contraception use and/or unprotected or underprotected intercourse. This was a cross-sectional study among current members of a professional organization of family planning specialists. Inclusion criteria included: status as a current or retired clinician, consensual penile-vaginal intercourse and personal or partner capacity to become pregnant since the start of medical training. Descriptive statistics were performed. This study was IRB exempt. Among 229 respondents, 157 (69%) reported experiencing a contraceptive risk event since training. Twenty-nine (13%) respondents reported an occurrence within the last year. By category, 47% (108/229; 3 reported unknown) reported under- or unprotected intercourse, 35% (81/229) reported emergency contraception use, and 52% of participants (117/227; 2 unknown) reported known or suspected contraceptive failure. The mean number of contraceptive methods used was 3.7 (SD 1.7) out of the 13 methods listed. Almost all (97%) participants reported at least one method was not an acceptable option, with a mean of 5.6 (SD 2.7) of the 13 listed methods. The majority of family planning specialists have experienced contraceptive risk events during times of active pregnancy prevention since their medical training. Contraceptive method change is common and most respondents were limited in the number of methods that were personally acceptable to them. Dialogue idealizing the role of contraception in minimizing or eliminating abortion need is simplistic and inaccurately represents the lived realities of pregnancy-capable individuals and their partners, including among those with exceptional contraceptive literacy and access. Since Dobbs v. Jackson, the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case overturning the right to abortion, it is very important to better understand current birth control use and the risk of unintended pregnancy. While birth control helps people to avoid unintended pregnancy, current methods are not perfect. This study examined the limitations of current birth control, even when used by expert clinicians with special knowledge and access. We provided an online survey to doctors and advanced practice clinicians who specialize in birth control. We measured risk of unintended pregnancy by asking about experiences with birth control failure, emergency contraceptive use (such as plan B), and unprotected sex since the start of medical training. We also asked about reasons for changing or avoiding certain birth control methods. Among 229 expert clinicians, we found that nearly 70% had experienced a risk of unintended pregnancy since beginning their medical training. Birth control method change was common, and many reported that several options were unacceptable. Participants shared that they found methods difficult, unreliable, unpleasant, or had health conditions that limited the number of safe options available. Our findings suggest that, even among experts, everyone remains at risk of unintended pregnancy. The study highlights the need for improved birth control options as well as access to safe and legal abortion.\n","PeriodicalId":20899,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Health","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-024-01870-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Proponents of abortion restriction cite advancements in contraceptive technology as a reason against the need for abortion care today, most recently through oral arguments in the Supreme Court of the United States case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. However, consistent and correct use of contraception requires reproductive health literacy. Our objectives were to quantify contraceptive risk events and assess contraceptive history and preferences among a population well-equipped to evade contraceptive risks, family planning specialists following initiation of their medical training. “Risk events” are defined as reported episodes of contraceptive failure, emergency contraception use and/or unprotected or underprotected intercourse. This was a cross-sectional study among current members of a professional organization of family planning specialists. Inclusion criteria included: status as a current or retired clinician, consensual penile-vaginal intercourse and personal or partner capacity to become pregnant since the start of medical training. Descriptive statistics were performed. This study was IRB exempt. Among 229 respondents, 157 (69%) reported experiencing a contraceptive risk event since training. Twenty-nine (13%) respondents reported an occurrence within the last year. By category, 47% (108/229; 3 reported unknown) reported under- or unprotected intercourse, 35% (81/229) reported emergency contraception use, and 52% of participants (117/227; 2 unknown) reported known or suspected contraceptive failure. The mean number of contraceptive methods used was 3.7 (SD 1.7) out of the 13 methods listed. Almost all (97%) participants reported at least one method was not an acceptable option, with a mean of 5.6 (SD 2.7) of the 13 listed methods. The majority of family planning specialists have experienced contraceptive risk events during times of active pregnancy prevention since their medical training. Contraceptive method change is common and most respondents were limited in the number of methods that were personally acceptable to them. Dialogue idealizing the role of contraception in minimizing or eliminating abortion need is simplistic and inaccurately represents the lived realities of pregnancy-capable individuals and their partners, including among those with exceptional contraceptive literacy and access. Since Dobbs v. Jackson, the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case overturning the right to abortion, it is very important to better understand current birth control use and the risk of unintended pregnancy. While birth control helps people to avoid unintended pregnancy, current methods are not perfect. This study examined the limitations of current birth control, even when used by expert clinicians with special knowledge and access. We provided an online survey to doctors and advanced practice clinicians who specialize in birth control. We measured risk of unintended pregnancy by asking about experiences with birth control failure, emergency contraceptive use (such as plan B), and unprotected sex since the start of medical training. We also asked about reasons for changing or avoiding certain birth control methods. Among 229 expert clinicians, we found that nearly 70% had experienced a risk of unintended pregnancy since beginning their medical training. Birth control method change was common, and many reported that several options were unacceptable. Participants shared that they found methods difficult, unreliable, unpleasant, or had health conditions that limited the number of safe options available. Our findings suggest that, even among experts, everyone remains at risk of unintended pregnancy. The study highlights the need for improved birth control options as well as access to safe and legal abortion.
计划生育专家的避孕风险事件:一项横断面研究
限制堕胎的支持者以避孕技术的进步为由,反驳当今堕胎护理的必要性,最近一次是在美国最高法院的 "多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康 "案的口头辩论中。然而,坚持正确使用避孕药具需要具备生殖健康知识。我们的目标是对避孕风险事件进行量化,并对有能力规避避孕风险的人群--接受过医学培训的计划生育专家--的避孕史和偏好进行评估。"风险事件 "是指报告的避孕失败、使用紧急避孕药和/或无保护或保护不足的性交。这是一项针对计划生育专家专业组织现任成员的横断面研究。纳入标准包括:现任或退休临床医生身份、双方同意的阴茎-阴道性交以及自医学培训开始以来个人或伴侣的怀孕能力。研究采用了描述性统计方法。本研究获得了美国国际研究委员会(IRB)的豁免。在 229 名受访者中,有 157 人(69%)称自接受培训以来经历过避孕风险事件。有 29 名受访者(13%)称在过去一年内发生过避孕风险事件。按类别划分,47% 的受访者(108/229;3 名受访者情况不明)报告未采取保护措施或未采取保护措施性交,35% 的受访者(81/229)报告使用了紧急避孕药具,52% 的受访者(117/227;2 名受访者情况不明)报告已知或怀疑避孕失败。在列出的 13 种避孕方法中,平均使用了 3.7 种(标准差为 1.7)。几乎所有参与者(97%)都表示至少有一种方法是不可接受的,在列出的 13 种方法中,平均为 5.6 种(标准差 2.7)。大多数计划生育专家自接受医学培训以来,在积极避孕期间都经历过避孕风险事件。避孕方法的改变很常见,大多数受访者个人可接受的避孕方法数量有限。将避孕药具在减少或消除堕胎需求方面的作用理想化的对话过于简单化,不准确地反映了有怀孕能力的个人及其伴侣的生活现实,包括那些对避孕药具有特殊认识和获取途径的人。多布斯诉杰克逊案是美国最高法院推翻堕胎权的标志性案件,自此,更好地了解当前节育措施的使用情况和意外怀孕的风险就变得非常重要。虽然节育措施可以帮助人们避免意外怀孕,但目前的方法并不完美。本研究探讨了当前节育方法的局限性,即使是由具备专业知识和渠道的临床专家使用也是如此。我们向专门从事节育的医生和高级临床医师提供了一份在线调查。我们通过询问自医学培训开始以来避孕失败、使用紧急避孕药(如 B 计划)和无保护性行为的经历来衡量意外怀孕的风险。我们还询问了改变或避免使用某些避孕方法的原因。在 229 名专家临床医生中,我们发现近 70% 的人在开始接受医学培训后曾经历过意外怀孕的风险。改变节育方法很常见,许多人表示有几种方法无法接受。参与者分享说,他们发现避孕方法很困难、不可靠、不愉快,或者健康状况限制了可供选择的安全避孕方法的数量。我们的研究结果表明,即使是专家,每个人都有意外怀孕的风险。这项研究强调了改善节育选择以及获得安全合法堕胎的必要性。
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
Reproductive Health
Reproductive Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
220
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Reproductive Health focuses on all aspects of human reproduction. The journal includes sections dedicated to adolescent health, female fertility and midwifery and all content is open access. Reproductive health is defined as a state of physical, mental, and social well-being in all matters relating to the reproductive system, at all stages of life. Good reproductive health implies that people are able to have a satisfying and safe sex life, the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how often to do so. Men and women should be informed about and have access to safe, effective, affordable, and acceptable methods of family planning of their choice, and the right to appropriate health-care services that enable women to safely go through pregnancy and childbirth.
×
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