Delivery at Catholic hospitals and postpartum contraception use, five US states, 2015-2018.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-13 DOI:10.1363/psrh.12186
Michelle C Menegay, Rebecca Andridge, Katherine Rivlin, Maria F Gallo
{"title":"Delivery at Catholic hospitals and postpartum contraception use, five US states, 2015-2018.","authors":"Michelle C Menegay,&nbsp;Rebecca Andridge,&nbsp;Katherine Rivlin,&nbsp;Maria F Gallo","doi":"10.1363/psrh.12186","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate whether the prevalence of postpartum contraceptive use was lower among people who delivered at a Catholic hospital compared to a non-Catholic hospital.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We linked 2015-2018 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) survey data from five states to hospital information from the corresponding birth certificate file. People with a live birth self-reported their use of contraception methods on the PRAMS survey at 2-6 months postpartum, which we coded into two dichotomous (yes vs. no) outcomes for use of female sterilization and highly-effective contraception (female/male sterilization, intrauterine device, implant, injectable, oral contraception, patch, or ring). We conducted multilevel log-binomial regression to examine the relationship between birth hospital type and postpartum contraception use adjusting for confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prevalence of female sterilization for people who delivered at a Catholic hospital was 51% lower than that of their counterparts delivering at a non-Catholic hospital (adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.65).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found lower use of postpartum female sterilization, but no difference in highly effective contraception overall, for people who delivered at a Catholic hospital compared to a non-Catholic hospital.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e9/29/PSRH-54-5.PMC9305525.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12186","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate whether the prevalence of postpartum contraceptive use was lower among people who delivered at a Catholic hospital compared to a non-Catholic hospital.

Methods: We linked 2015-2018 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) survey data from five states to hospital information from the corresponding birth certificate file. People with a live birth self-reported their use of contraception methods on the PRAMS survey at 2-6 months postpartum, which we coded into two dichotomous (yes vs. no) outcomes for use of female sterilization and highly-effective contraception (female/male sterilization, intrauterine device, implant, injectable, oral contraception, patch, or ring). We conducted multilevel log-binomial regression to examine the relationship between birth hospital type and postpartum contraception use adjusting for confounders.

Results: Prevalence of female sterilization for people who delivered at a Catholic hospital was 51% lower than that of their counterparts delivering at a non-Catholic hospital (adjusted prevalence ratio: 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.65).

Conclusion: We found lower use of postpartum female sterilization, but no difference in highly effective contraception overall, for people who delivered at a Catholic hospital compared to a non-Catholic hospital.

Abstract Image

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
2015-2018年,美国五个州天主教医院的分娩和产后避孕措施的使用。
目的:评价在天主教医院分娩的孕妇是否比在非天主教医院分娩的孕妇使用产后避孕药具的比例更低。方法:我们将来自5个州的2015-2018年妊娠风险评估监测系统(PRAMS)调查数据与相应出生证明文件中的医院信息联系起来。活产的人在产后2-6个月的PRAMS调查中自我报告了他们使用避孕方法的情况,我们将使用女性绝育和高效避孕(女性/男性绝育、宫内节育器、植入物、注射、口服避孕、贴片或环)的结果分为两类(是或否)。我们进行了多水平对数二项回归来检验出生医院类型与产后避孕使用之间的关系,调整了混杂因素。结果:在天主教医院分娩的女性绝育率比在非天主教医院分娩的女性低51%(调整患病率:0.49;95%置信区间:0.37-0.65)。结论:我们发现在天主教医院分娩的妇女与在非天主教医院分娩的妇女相比,产后女性绝育的使用率较低,但总体上在高效避孕方面没有差异。
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