Supporting informed decisions about tubal sterilization with a patient-facing website: a randomized trial.

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, Hannah Begna, Agatha Okobi, Amy Chiang, Kelly Treder, Rebecca L Sudore
{"title":"Supporting informed decisions about tubal sterilization with a patient-facing website: a randomized trial.","authors":"Eleanor Bimla Schwarz, Hannah Begna, Agatha Okobi, Amy Chiang, Kelly Treder, Rebecca L Sudore","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2026.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interest in permanent contraception has increased in the US since the 2022 Dobbs decision restricted access to abortion in many states. Despite use of the federally mandated \"consent for sterilization\" form HHS-687, one of every five US patients who undergo tubal sterilization subsequently reports a desire to reverse their tubal sterilization, indicating that efforts to ensure informed decision-making before permanent contraceptive procedures remain needed.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To increase access to desired contraceptive services and knowledge of long-acting contraceptive options, we developed and evaluated the efficacy of a patient-facing educational website for patients considering tubal sterilization.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We enrolled 350 individuals considering tubal sterilization in a randomized controlled trial. Participants allocated to the intervention group reviewed the \"Advancing Access\" website while the \"attention control\" group reviewed the federal sterilization consent form HHS-687 and Planned Parenthood's tubal sterilization website. Follow-up data was collected within 1 week and 3 months following the website review. The study's primary outcome was a multidimensional measure of access to reproductive health services measured 3 months after website review that assessed awareness, availability, affordability, acceptability, and belief that a given method of birth control was safe given their personal health status, with attention to 6 methods (tubal sterilization, vasectomy, IUD, implant, emergency contraception, and abortion pills). Secondary outcomes included contraceptive knowledge and preferences. We used Chi-square and t-tests to compare study groups, and multivariable linear regression models to assess the robustness of the intervention effects, after controlling for participant age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, history of pregnancy, and region of residence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age of the 350 study participants was 33 +/- 7 years. Most (55%, 192/350) had publicly funded health insurance, and 67% (237/350) had annual household incomes below $60,001. On enrollment, average perceived access (52% vs 53%, p=0.46) and average contraceptive knowledge scores (42% vs 41% of questions answered correctly, p=0.67) were similarly low in both study groups. Three months after enrollment, the intervention group had greater perceived access to birth control (62% vs 58%, p=0.02; adjusted mean difference 3.24, 95% CI: 1.81-4.67). Within 1 week of reviewing the study materials, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in average contraceptive knowledge scores (68% vs 52% of questions answered correctly, P<0.001) that persisted at 3 months (61% vs 52%, p < 0.001; adjusted mean difference 2.00, 95% CI: 0.21-3.79). At 3-months, tubal sterilization remained the most commonly preferred method in both study groups (30% intervention vs 25% control, p=0.40), with increased preference for implant use (17% vs 9%, p=0.05) in the intervention group at 3 months.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The \"Advancing Access\" website increases perceived access to and knowledge of long-acting contraceptives more than the federal sterilization consent form, even when combined with review of another website.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2026.10.003","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Interest in permanent contraception has increased in the US since the 2022 Dobbs decision restricted access to abortion in many states. Despite use of the federally mandated "consent for sterilization" form HHS-687, one of every five US patients who undergo tubal sterilization subsequently reports a desire to reverse their tubal sterilization, indicating that efforts to ensure informed decision-making before permanent contraceptive procedures remain needed.

Objectives: To increase access to desired contraceptive services and knowledge of long-acting contraceptive options, we developed and evaluated the efficacy of a patient-facing educational website for patients considering tubal sterilization.

Study design: We enrolled 350 individuals considering tubal sterilization in a randomized controlled trial. Participants allocated to the intervention group reviewed the "Advancing Access" website while the "attention control" group reviewed the federal sterilization consent form HHS-687 and Planned Parenthood's tubal sterilization website. Follow-up data was collected within 1 week and 3 months following the website review. The study's primary outcome was a multidimensional measure of access to reproductive health services measured 3 months after website review that assessed awareness, availability, affordability, acceptability, and belief that a given method of birth control was safe given their personal health status, with attention to 6 methods (tubal sterilization, vasectomy, IUD, implant, emergency contraception, and abortion pills). Secondary outcomes included contraceptive knowledge and preferences. We used Chi-square and t-tests to compare study groups, and multivariable linear regression models to assess the robustness of the intervention effects, after controlling for participant age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, history of pregnancy, and region of residence.

Results: The average age of the 350 study participants was 33 +/- 7 years. Most (55%, 192/350) had publicly funded health insurance, and 67% (237/350) had annual household incomes below $60,001. On enrollment, average perceived access (52% vs 53%, p=0.46) and average contraceptive knowledge scores (42% vs 41% of questions answered correctly, p=0.67) were similarly low in both study groups. Three months after enrollment, the intervention group had greater perceived access to birth control (62% vs 58%, p=0.02; adjusted mean difference 3.24, 95% CI: 1.81-4.67). Within 1 week of reviewing the study materials, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement in average contraceptive knowledge scores (68% vs 52% of questions answered correctly, P<0.001) that persisted at 3 months (61% vs 52%, p < 0.001; adjusted mean difference 2.00, 95% CI: 0.21-3.79). At 3-months, tubal sterilization remained the most commonly preferred method in both study groups (30% intervention vs 25% control, p=0.40), with increased preference for implant use (17% vs 9%, p=0.05) in the intervention group at 3 months.

Conclusions: The "Advancing Access" website increases perceived access to and knowledge of long-acting contraceptives more than the federal sterilization consent form, even when combined with review of another website.

通过面向患者的网站支持关于输卵管绝育的知情决定:一项随机试验。
背景:自2022年多布斯决定在许多州限制堕胎以来,美国对永久避孕的兴趣有所增加。尽管使用了HHS-687中联邦强制的“绝育同意”,但每五个接受输卵管绝育的美国患者中就有一个报告说希望撤销其输卵管绝育,这表明在采取永久性避孕措施之前仍需要努力确保知情决策。目的:为了增加获得所需的避孕服务和长效避孕选择的知识,我们为考虑输卵管绝育的患者开发并评估了一个面向患者的教育网站的效果。研究设计:我们在一项随机对照试验中招募了350名考虑输卵管绝育的患者。被分配到干预组的参与者浏览了“推进访问”网站,而“注意力控制”组的参与者浏览了联邦绝育同意书HHS-687和计划生育的输卵管绝育网站。随访数据在网站复查后1周和3个月内收集。该研究的主要结果是在网站审查3个月后对获得生殖健康服务的多维度测量,评估了意识、可获得性、可负担性、可接受性以及考虑到个人健康状况对特定节育方法安全的信念,并关注了6种方法(输卵管绝育、输精管切除术、宫内节育器、植入、紧急避孕和堕胎药)。次要结局包括避孕知识和偏好。在控制了参与者的年龄、教育程度、种族/民族、婚姻状况、怀孕史和居住地区后,我们使用卡方检验和t检验来比较研究组,并使用多变量线性回归模型来评估干预效果的稳健性。结果:350名研究参与者的平均年龄为33±7岁。大多数人(55%,192/350)拥有公共资助的医疗保险,67%(237/350)的家庭年收入低于60,001美元。在入组时,两个研究组的平均感知获取(52% vs 53%, p=0.46)和平均避孕知识得分(42% vs 41%的问题回答正确,p=0.67)同样较低。入组3个月后,干预组更容易获得节育(62% vs 58%, p=0.02;调整后平均差3.24,95% CI: 1.81-4.67)。在审查研究材料的一周内,干预组在平均避孕知识得分上有了显著的改善(68% vs 52%的问题回答正确)。结论:“推进获取”网站比联邦绝育同意书更能增加对长效避孕药具的获取和知识,即使与其他网站的审查结合起来也是如此。
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
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
×
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
小红书