Justine P Wu1, Michael M McKee2, Kimberly S Mckee2, Michelle A Meade3, Melissa Plegue2, Ananda Sen4. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. Electronic address: justinep@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA. 3. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, 1018 Fuller Street, Ann Arbor, MI, 48108, USA; Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48104, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Female sterilization accounts for 50% of all contraceptive use in the U.S. The extent to which U.S. women with physical and/or sensory disabilities have undergone female sterilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the prevalence of sterilization for women with physical/sensory disabilities, and compare this to the prevalence for women without disabilities. We also compared use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods between women with and without disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2013, a population-based survey of U.S. women aged 15-44. Bivariate comparisons between women with and without disabilities by female sterilization and LARC use were conducted using chi-square tests. Using logistic regression, we estimated the odds of female sterilization based upon disability status. RESULTS: Women with physical/sensory disabilities accounted for 9.3% of the total sample (N = 4966). Among women with disabilities only, 28.2% had undergone female sterilization, representing 1.2 million women nationally. LARC use was lower among women with disabilities than those without disabilities (5.4%, 9.3%, respectively, p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education, insurance, marital status, parity, and self-reported health, women with disabilities had higher odds of sterilization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03, 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: The odds of female sterilization is higher among women with physical/sensory disabilities than those without disabilities. Future research is necessary to understand factors contributing to this finding, including possible underutilization of LARC methods.
BACKGROUND: Female sterilization accounts for 50% of all contraceptive use in the U.S. The extent to which U.S. women with physical and/or sensory disabilities have undergone female sterilization is unknown. OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine the prevalence of sterilization for women with physical/sensory disabilities, and compare this to the prevalence for women without disabilities. We also compared use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods between women with and without disabilities. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2013, a population-based survey of U.S. women aged 15-44. Bivariate comparisons between women with and without disabilities by female sterilization and LARC use were conducted using chi-square tests. Using logistic regression, we estimated the odds of female sterilization based upon disability status. RESULTS:Women with physical/sensory disabilities accounted for 9.3% of the total sample (N = 4966). Among women with disabilities only, 28.2% had undergone female sterilization, representing 1.2 million women nationally. LARC use was lower among women with disabilities than those without disabilities (5.4%, 9.3%, respectively, p < 0.01). After adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education, insurance, marital status, parity, and self-reported health, women with disabilities had higher odds of sterilization (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.03, 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: The odds of female sterilization is higher among women with physical/sensory disabilities than those without disabilities. Future research is necessary to understand factors contributing to this finding, including possible underutilization of LARC methods.
Authors: Henan Li; Monika Mitra; Justine P Wu; Susan L Parish; Anne Valentine; Robert S Dembo Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Renee Monique Haynes; Sheree L Boulet; Michael H Fox; Dianna D Carroll; Elizabeth Courtney-Long; Lee Warner Journal: Contraception Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 3.375