Literature DB >> 22151509

A study of physician recommendations for reversible contraceptive methods using standardized patients.

Christine Dehlendorf1, Kevin Grumbach, Eric Vittinghoff, Rachel Ruskin, Jody Steinauer.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Health care providers may influence patients' choice of contraceptive method, yet little is known about the recommendations they make to their patients.
METHODS: In 2007-2008, a total of 468 physicians at four family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology meetings were randomly assigned to view one of 18 videos of a patient seeking contraceptive advice; the patients were standardized for most relevant behaviors and characteristics, but differed by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status and gynecologic history. Participants provided their demographic and practice characteristics and completed a survey about their contraceptive recommendations for the patient. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associations between physician characteristics and recommendations for specific contraceptive methods.
RESULTS: The most frequently recommended methods were the pill (89%) and ring (80%), followed by the levonor-gestrel IUD (64%), patch (56%), injectable (49%) and copper IUD (45%). Oral contraceptives were more likely to be recommended by private practice physicians than by academic physicians (odds ratio, 2.9). Recommendations for the ring were less common among family physicians and those 56 or older than among obstetrician-gynecologists and those 35 or younger (0.6 and 0.3, respectively), and more common among physicians in private practice than among those in academia (2.4). The patch and injectable were more commonly recommended by family physicians than by obstetrician-gynecologists (2.6 and 2.5, respectively). Both IUD types were recommended less often by physicians 36 or older than by younger ones (0.2-0.5). DISCUSSION: The advice women receive about contraception may vary according to the characteristics of their provider. Research on the reasons for these differences is needed.
Copyright © 2011 by the Guttmacher Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22151509      PMCID: PMC3537260          DOI: 10.1363/4322411

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health        ISSN: 1538-6341


  19 in total

Review 1.  Contraceptive and therapeutic effects of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system: an overview.

Authors:  Jeffrey T Jensen
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 2.347

2.  Training and attitudes about contraceptive management across primary care specialties: a survey of graduating residents.

Authors:  Courtney A Schreiber; Bryna J Harwood; Galen E Switzer; Mitchell D Creinin; Matthew F Reeves; Roberta B Ness
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2006-04-17       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 3.  Intrauterine contraception: the pendulum swings back.

Authors:  Laura MacIsaac; Eve Espey
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.844

4.  Attitudes towards long-acting reversible methods of contraception in general practice in the UK.

Authors:  Kaye Wellings; Zhang Zhihong; Alison Krentel; Geraldine Barrett; Anna Glasier
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2007-07-26       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006.

Authors:  Lawrence B Finer; Mia R Zolna
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  Contraceptive prescription: physician beliefs, attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics.

Authors:  M L Russell; E J Love
Journal:  Can J Public Health       Date:  1991 Jul-Aug

7.  Intrauterine contraception: evaluation of clinician practice patterns in Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Authors:  Debbie Postlethwaite; Ruth Shaber; Victoria Mancuso; Jean Flores; Mary Anne Armstrong
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2007-01-16       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  The attitudes of clinic staff as factors in women's selection of Norplant implants for their contraception.

Authors:  M L Frank; L Bateman; A N Poindexter
Journal:  Women Health       Date:  1994

9.  Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception.

Authors:  Cynthia C Harper; Maya Blum; Heike Thiel de Bocanegra; Philip D Darney; J Joseph Speidel; Michael Policar; Eleanor A Drey
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: a randomized comparative trial.

Authors:  K Andersson; V Odlind; G Rybo
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  7 in total

1.  Agreement between Self-Reported "Ideal" and Currently Used Contraceptive Methods among Women Veterans Using the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

Authors:  Colleen P Judge-Golden; Tierney E Wolgemuth; Xinhua Zhao; Maria K Mor; Sonya Borrero
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2020-04-19

2.  Development of a brief questionnaire to assess contraceptive intent.

Authors:  Tina R Raine-Bennett; Corinne H Rocca
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-06-03

Review 3.  Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.

Authors:  Marina A S Daniele; John Cleland; Lenka Benova; Moazzam Ali
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.223

4.  Prevalence of prescription medication use among non-pregnant women of childbearing age and pregnant women in the United States: NHANES, 1999-2006.

Authors:  Sarah C Tinker; Cheryl S Broussard; Meghan T Frey; Suzanne M Gilboa
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-05

5.  Counseling about IUDs: a mixed-methods analysis.

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Mithu Tharayil; Nora Anderson; Kessy Gbenedio; Allen Wittman; Jody Steinauer
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2014-03-13

6.  Health workers' values and preferences regarding contraceptive methods globally: A systematic review.

Authors:  Komal S Soin; Ping Teresa Yeh; Mary E Gaffield; Christina Ge; Caitlin E Kennedy
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Perceived abortion stigma and psychological well-being over five years after receiving or being denied an abortion.

Authors:  M Antonia Biggs; Katherine Brown; Diana Greene Foster
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.