Explaining sex discrepancies in sterilization rates in the United States: An evidence-informed commentary.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-18 DOI:10.1363/psrh.12243
K Olivia Mock, Anne Moyer, Marci Lobel
{"title":"Explaining sex discrepancies in sterilization rates in the United States: An evidence-informed commentary.","authors":"K Olivia Mock,&nbsp;Anne Moyer,&nbsp;Marci Lobel","doi":"10.1363/psrh.12243","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>With abortion no longer deemed a constitutional right in the United States (US), the importance of effective contraceptive methods cannot be overstated. Both male sterilization (vasectomy) and female sterilization (tubal ligation) have the lowest failure rates of available means of contraception. Despite the less invasive and reversible nature of vasectomy compared to tubal ligation procedures and even though some healthcare professionals dissuade certain women, especially those who are white and/or economically advantaged, from undergoing a sterilization procedure, female sterilization is approximately three times more prevalent than male sterilization in the US.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We suggest that the discrepancy in sterilization rates is attributable to the burdens of pregnancy and birth experienced by women, beliefs that pregnancy prevention is a woman's responsibility, a dearth of sex education that results in lack of knowledge and poor understanding of contraception, perceptions of masculinity in which contraception is viewed as feminizing, and the increase in long-term singlehood that shapes the desire of individuals to avoid unwanted pregnancy that may result in single parenting.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Recent reports suggest that court rulings restricting abortion access and looming threats to contraceptive legality and accessibility may be prompting a national increase in male sterilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12243","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Context: With abortion no longer deemed a constitutional right in the United States (US), the importance of effective contraceptive methods cannot be overstated. Both male sterilization (vasectomy) and female sterilization (tubal ligation) have the lowest failure rates of available means of contraception. Despite the less invasive and reversible nature of vasectomy compared to tubal ligation procedures and even though some healthcare professionals dissuade certain women, especially those who are white and/or economically advantaged, from undergoing a sterilization procedure, female sterilization is approximately three times more prevalent than male sterilization in the US.

Purpose: We suggest that the discrepancy in sterilization rates is attributable to the burdens of pregnancy and birth experienced by women, beliefs that pregnancy prevention is a woman's responsibility, a dearth of sex education that results in lack of knowledge and poor understanding of contraception, perceptions of masculinity in which contraception is viewed as feminizing, and the increase in long-term singlehood that shapes the desire of individuals to avoid unwanted pregnancy that may result in single parenting.

Implications: Recent reports suggest that court rulings restricting abortion access and looming threats to contraceptive legality and accessibility may be prompting a national increase in male sterilization.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解释美国绝育率的性别差异:基于证据的评论。
背景:随着堕胎在美国不再被视为宪法权利,有效避孕方法的重要性怎么强调都不为过。男性绝育(输精管切除术)和女性绝育(输卵管结扎术)的避孕失败率最低。尽管与输卵管结扎手术相比,输精管切除术的侵袭性和可逆性较小,尽管一些医疗保健专业人员劝阻某些女性,尤其是白人和/或经济优势女性,不要进行绝育手术,在美国,女性绝育的流行率大约是男性绝育的三倍。目的:我们认为,绝育率的差异可归因于女性经历的怀孕和分娩负担,认为预防怀孕是女性的责任,缺乏性教育,导致对避孕缺乏知识和理解,对男性气概的看法,避孕被视为女性化,长期单身的增加,塑造了个人避免意外怀孕的愿望,而意外怀孕可能导致单亲。影响:最近的报告表明,法院限制堕胎的裁决以及对避孕合法性和可及性的迫在眉睫的威胁可能会促使全国男性绝育的增加。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health provides the latest peer-reviewed, policy-relevant research and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and other developed countries. For more than four decades, Perspectives has offered unique insights into how reproductive health issues relate to one another; how they are affected by policies and programs; and their implications for individuals and societies. Published four times a year, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health includes original research, special reports and commentaries on the latest developments in the field of sexual and reproductive health, as well as staff-written summaries of recent findings in the field.
期刊最新文献
Understanding abortion legality and trimester of abortion care in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, three abortion‐restrictive states Exploring adolescent-facing US clinicians' perceptions of their contraceptive counseling and use of shared decision-making: A qualitative study. "It shouldn't be just hush-hush": A qualitative community-based study of menstrual health communication among women in Philadelphia. Amicus brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers supports mifepristone's safety and effectiveness. Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1