Female Permanent Contraception Procedures Surrounding the Dobbs v. Jackson Ruling at a Single Institution.

Bethlehem A Lulseged, Tori L Rockwell, Karen C Wang, Carolyn B Sufrin, Anne E Burke, Rebecca L Stone, Anja S Frost
{"title":"Female Permanent Contraception Procedures Surrounding the <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i> Ruling at a Single Institution.","authors":"Bethlehem A Lulseged, Tori L Rockwell, Karen C Wang, Carolyn B Sufrin, Anne E Burke, Rebecca L Stone, Anja S Frost","doi":"10.1089/jwh.2024.0368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Introduction:</i></b> On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Jackson Women's Health Organization in <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i> (2022), reversing the constitutional right to abortion. We aimed to describe the number of interval female permanent contraception procedures at a single institution surrounding the <i>Dobbs v. Jackson</i> ruling. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We performed a retrospective chart review of permanent contraception procedures using relevant Current Procedural Terminology codes at one academic institution between June 2019 and May 2023. Contraception procedures across three, year-long preruling and one, year-long postruling periods were compared with one another; they were then also compared to percent changes in hysteroscopy procedures-a representation of average gynecological surgical volume. To reduce the impact of coronavirus, chi-square and difference-in-mean-proportions tests explored significance in the number of procedures during the 6/24/19-6/23/20 preruling and the 6/24/22-5/25/23 postruling period. <b><i>Results:</i></b> There were 913 contraception procedures performed: 611 in the preruling period and 302 in the postruling period. A 62.4% increase in procedures occurred between preruling period 1 (<i>n</i> = 186) and the postruling period (<i>n</i> = 302), and a 49.5% increase occurred between the 3-year preruling average (<i>n</i> = 202) and the postruling period. Relative to hysteroscopy procedures, there was a 44.6% and 39.3% increase in contraception procedures between preruling period 1 and the postruling period and the 3-year preruling average and the postruling period, respectively. A higher proportion of White and privately insured patients (<i>p</i> < 0.001, <i>p</i> < 0.001) underwent procedures postruling. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Permanent contraception procedures increased following the <i>Dobbs</i> ruling, with differences found by race and insurance type. Further research is needed to explore the causes of increased procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":520699,"journal":{"name":"Journal of women's health (2002)","volume":"34 6","pages":"810-816"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of women's health (2002)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2024.0368","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

Introduction: On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Jackson Women's Health Organization in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), reversing the constitutional right to abortion. We aimed to describe the number of interval female permanent contraception procedures at a single institution surrounding the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of permanent contraception procedures using relevant Current Procedural Terminology codes at one academic institution between June 2019 and May 2023. Contraception procedures across three, year-long preruling and one, year-long postruling periods were compared with one another; they were then also compared to percent changes in hysteroscopy procedures-a representation of average gynecological surgical volume. To reduce the impact of coronavirus, chi-square and difference-in-mean-proportions tests explored significance in the number of procedures during the 6/24/19-6/23/20 preruling and the 6/24/22-5/25/23 postruling period. Results: There were 913 contraception procedures performed: 611 in the preruling period and 302 in the postruling period. A 62.4% increase in procedures occurred between preruling period 1 (n = 186) and the postruling period (n = 302), and a 49.5% increase occurred between the 3-year preruling average (n = 202) and the postruling period. Relative to hysteroscopy procedures, there was a 44.6% and 39.3% increase in contraception procedures between preruling period 1 and the postruling period and the 3-year preruling average and the postruling period, respectively. A higher proportion of White and privately insured patients (p < 0.001, p < 0.001) underwent procedures postruling. Conclusions: Permanent contraception procedures increased following the Dobbs ruling, with differences found by race and insurance type. Further research is needed to explore the causes of increased procedures.

围绕单一机构多布斯诉杰克逊案的女性永久避孕程序。
导读:2022年6月24日,美国最高法院在多布斯诉杰克逊案(Dobbs v. Jackson, 2022)中判决杰克逊妇女健康组织败诉,推翻了宪法赋予的堕胎权。我们的目的是描述间隔女性永久避孕程序的数量在单一机构围绕多布斯诉杰克逊裁决。方法:我们在2019年6月至2023年5月期间对一所学术机构使用相关现行程序术语代码的永久性避孕程序进行回顾性图表回顾。避孕程序在3年的节育前和1年的节育后相互比较;然后,他们还将其与宫腔镜手术的百分比变化进行了比较——这是平均妇科手术量的代表。为减少冠状病毒的影响,卡方检验和均值比例差异检验探讨了6/24/19-6/23/20术前和6/24/22-5/25/23术后手术次数的显著性。结果:共实施避孕措施913次,其中孕前611次,产后302次。预诊1期(n = 186)与产后(n = 302)之间的手术次数增加了62.4%,预诊3年平均值(n = 202)与产后期间的手术次数增加了49.5%。与宫腔镜手术相比,第1次孕前至产后、3年平均孕前至产后的避孕手术次数分别增加44.6%和39.3%。较高比例的白人和私人保险患者(p < 0.001, p < 0.001)接受手术后。结论:在Dobbs判决后,永久性避孕程序增加,但种族和保险类型存在差异。需要进一步的研究来探索手术增加的原因。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信