Contraception · 2026
Physical disability and postpartum contraception use in Ontario, Canada: A population-based study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Brown Hilary K, Scime Natalie V, Sharpe Isobel, Brennand Erin A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To explore postpartum use of permanent contraception, intrauterine devices, oral contraception, and injectable contraception in people with and without physical disabilities.
STUDY DESIGN: We undertook a population-based cohort study of 15 to 49-year-olds with (n=178,400) and without physical disabilities (n=1,557,304) who had an obstetrical delivery without hysterectomy in Ontario, Canada, 2007-2021. Groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression on use of permanent contraception, intrauterine devices, oral contraception, and injectable contraception by 6 months postpartum, censoring on subsequent conception, hysterectomy, outmigration, or death. Models adjusted for age, parity, income quintile, rurality, immigration, and delivery year.
RESULTS: Individuals with physical disabilities had greater hazards than those without physical disabilities of using permanent contraception (5.1% vs. 3.9%; aHR 1.30, 95% CI 1.27-1.33), intrauterine devices (11.2% vs. 10.1%; aHR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.21), oral contraception (12.8% vs. 11.9%; aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.11), and injectable contraception (4.0% vs. 3.3%; aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.31) by 6 months postpartum. Findings were similar by 12 and 24 months postpartum.
CONCLUSION: Individuals with physical disabilities were more likely than those without physical disabilities to have postpartum contraception use, including permanent contraception. Future studies should explore the reasons for these patterns to inform family planning supports.
STUDY DESIGN: We undertook a population-based cohort study of 15 to 49-year-olds with (n=178,400) and without physical disabilities (n=1,557,304) who had an obstetrical delivery without hysterectomy in Ontario, Canada, 2007-2021. Groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression on use of permanent contraception, intrauterine devices, oral contraception, and injectable contraception by 6 months postpartum, censoring on subsequent conception, hysterectomy, outmigration, or death. Models adjusted for age, parity, income quintile, rurality, immigration, and delivery year.
RESULTS: Individuals with physical disabilities had greater hazards than those without physical disabilities of using permanent contraception (5.1% vs. 3.9%; aHR 1.30, 95% CI 1.27-1.33), intrauterine devices (11.2% vs. 10.1%; aHR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.21), oral contraception (12.8% vs. 11.9%; aHR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04-1.11), and injectable contraception (4.0% vs. 3.3%; aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16-1.31) by 6 months postpartum. Findings were similar by 12 and 24 months postpartum.
CONCLUSION: Individuals with physical disabilities were more likely than those without physical disabilities to have postpartum contraception use, including permanent contraception. Future studies should explore the reasons for these patterns to inform family planning supports.