Contraception · 2024
Patient and obstetrician-gynecologist perspectives on considering long-acting reversible contraception for postpartum patients who desire permanent contraception.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thornton Madeline, Bullington Brooke W, Berg Kristen A, White Kari, Larkin Suzanna, Boozer Margaret, Serna Tania, Miller Emily S, Bailit Jennifer L, Arora Kavita S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE(S): We sought to understand patients' and obstetrician-gynecologists' priorities in seeking or recommending long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (LARC; intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) versus permanent contraception in the postpartum period when permanent contraception was the patient's initial contraceptive preference.
STUDY DESIGN: We interviewed 81 postpartum patients who desired permanent contraception and their delivering obstetrician-gynecologist (n = 67) from four US institutions to explore patient and obstetrician-gynecologist (OBGYN) perspectives navigating permanent contraception counseling and decision-making. We used thematic content analysis to analyze interview transcripts using NVivo 12 Pro software.
RESULTS: Our analysis revealed a mismatch between patient and OBGYN priorities when considering permanent contraception versus LARC. Many OBGYNs in our study described a preference for LARC methods over permanent contraception and often prioritized factors such as reversibility and menstrual suppression. However, many patients sought permanent contraception for reasons that were not adequately addressed by LARC methods such as method permanence, desire to avoid menstrual suppression, cancer prevention, prior negative experiences with LARC, and a preference to avoid a foreign body.
CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that priorities in selecting a preferred contraceptive method may sometimes not be aligned between patients and clinicians and that LARC methods may not always be an acceptable alternative for patients who desire permanent contraception. The findings from this study highlight the importance of eliciting and centering a patient's goals and desires for pursuing permanent contraception during contraceptive counseling. Clinicians should be aware of the various perspectives and values patients have on these methods and include them in patient-centered share decision-making.
IMPLICATIONS: Our study revealed a large discrepancy between patient and obstetrician-gynecologist priorities in seeking or recommending permanent contraception. Clinicians must avoid making assumptions about a patient's priorities for a contraceptive choice to engage in truly patient-driven contraceptive counseling.
STUDY DESIGN: We interviewed 81 postpartum patients who desired permanent contraception and their delivering obstetrician-gynecologist (n = 67) from four US institutions to explore patient and obstetrician-gynecologist (OBGYN) perspectives navigating permanent contraception counseling and decision-making. We used thematic content analysis to analyze interview transcripts using NVivo 12 Pro software.
RESULTS: Our analysis revealed a mismatch between patient and OBGYN priorities when considering permanent contraception versus LARC. Many OBGYNs in our study described a preference for LARC methods over permanent contraception and often prioritized factors such as reversibility and menstrual suppression. However, many patients sought permanent contraception for reasons that were not adequately addressed by LARC methods such as method permanence, desire to avoid menstrual suppression, cancer prevention, prior negative experiences with LARC, and a preference to avoid a foreign body.
CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that priorities in selecting a preferred contraceptive method may sometimes not be aligned between patients and clinicians and that LARC methods may not always be an acceptable alternative for patients who desire permanent contraception. The findings from this study highlight the importance of eliciting and centering a patient's goals and desires for pursuing permanent contraception during contraceptive counseling. Clinicians should be aware of the various perspectives and values patients have on these methods and include them in patient-centered share decision-making.
IMPLICATIONS: Our study revealed a large discrepancy between patient and obstetrician-gynecologist priorities in seeking or recommending permanent contraception. Clinicians must avoid making assumptions about a patient's priorities for a contraceptive choice to engage in truly patient-driven contraceptive counseling.