Postpartum contraception usage in immigrants compared with non-immigrants in Buffalo, NY

IF 1.4 3区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.srhc.2023.100897
Rebeccah Stevens , Blakeley Schiffman , Faye Justicia-Linde , James Shelton
{"title":"Postpartum contraception usage in immigrants compared with non-immigrants in Buffalo, NY","authors":"Rebeccah Stevens ,&nbsp;Blakeley Schiffman ,&nbsp;Faye Justicia-Linde ,&nbsp;James Shelton","doi":"10.1016/j.srhc.2023.100897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The purpose of this study was to compare rates of postpartum contraception use in immigrant populations in Buffalo, NY compared with non-immigrant populations. The study also explores rates of specific birth control selection amongst those who did choose to employ postpartum contraception.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>A retrospective chart review was conducted comparing the rate of postpartum contraceptive use in 132 immigrant individuals with that of 134 non-immigrant individuals, as measured by the documented intent or refusal to initiate any contraceptive method within the first three months postpartum. Patients were from clinics affiliated with the Women and Children’s Hospital of Buffalo (WCHOB) who delivered during the years 2015–2016. The immigrant patients were chosen from the top ten immigrant countries of origin who delivered at WCHOB at the time.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>After controlling for factors of maternal age, gestational age at time of delivery, and gravidity and parity, the immigrant group was more likely to decline postpartum contraception in the first three months postpartum compared with the non-immigrant group (25.8% vs 6.7%, p &lt; 0.001). Immigrants were more likely to select a barrier method (p = 0.036) and decided to employ contraception more remotely from delivery when compared with non-immigrant individuals (p &lt; 0.001). Amongst the immigrant cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in methods chosen based on broad geographic areas of origin.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Immigrant obstetric populations in Buffalo are less likely to employ postpartum contraception compared with non-immigrant populations. The factors influencing this are multifactorial; however, this information can inform care for both immigrant and non-immigrant patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54199,"journal":{"name":"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877575623000873","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare rates of postpartum contraception use in immigrant populations in Buffalo, NY compared with non-immigrant populations. The study also explores rates of specific birth control selection amongst those who did choose to employ postpartum contraception.

Study design

A retrospective chart review was conducted comparing the rate of postpartum contraceptive use in 132 immigrant individuals with that of 134 non-immigrant individuals, as measured by the documented intent or refusal to initiate any contraceptive method within the first three months postpartum. Patients were from clinics affiliated with the Women and Children’s Hospital of Buffalo (WCHOB) who delivered during the years 2015–2016. The immigrant patients were chosen from the top ten immigrant countries of origin who delivered at WCHOB at the time.

Results

After controlling for factors of maternal age, gestational age at time of delivery, and gravidity and parity, the immigrant group was more likely to decline postpartum contraception in the first three months postpartum compared with the non-immigrant group (25.8% vs 6.7%, p < 0.001). Immigrants were more likely to select a barrier method (p = 0.036) and decided to employ contraception more remotely from delivery when compared with non-immigrant individuals (p < 0.001). Amongst the immigrant cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in methods chosen based on broad geographic areas of origin.

Conclusions

Immigrant obstetric populations in Buffalo are less likely to employ postpartum contraception compared with non-immigrant populations. The factors influencing this are multifactorial; however, this information can inform care for both immigrant and non-immigrant patients.

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
纽约州布法罗市移民与非移民产后避孕使用情况的比较
目的本研究的目的是比较纽约州水牛城移民人群与非移民人群的产后避孕使用率。该研究还探讨了那些选择产后避孕的人中特定节育选择的比率。研究设计进行了一项回顾性图表审查,比较了132名移民和134名非移民的产后避孕率,通过记录产后前三个月内有意或拒绝使用任何避孕方法来衡量。患者来自布法罗妇女儿童医院(WCHOB)附属诊所,他们在2015-2016年分娩。移民患者是从当时在WCHOB分娩的十大移民原籍国中选出的。结果在控制了产妇年龄、分娩时胎龄、妊娠和产次等因素后,与非移民组相比,移民组在产后前三个月更有可能拒绝产后避孕(25.8%对6.7%,p<0.001)。与非移民相比,移民更有可能选择障碍法(p=0.036),并决定在分娩后更远程地避孕(p<0.001在队列中,根据广泛的地理来源地区选择的方法没有统计学上的显著差异。结论与非移民人群相比,布法罗的移民产科人群不太可能采用产后避孕措施。影响这一点的因素是多因素的;然而,这些信息可以为移民和非移民患者的护理提供信息。
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
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare
Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
73
审稿时长
45 days
期刊最新文献
Investigating the associations between early labour onset symptoms and self-diagnosed labour onset in a cohort study of primiparas Overuse of intrapartum CTG monitoring in low-risk women in Norway Editorial Board The conclusion of CTG overuse is not justified Hysterectomy and medical financial hardship among U.S. women
×
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