共同决策:产后避孕咨询的前进之路。

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Open access journal of contraception Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.2147/OAJC.S360833
Brooke W Bullington, Asha Sata, Kavita Shah Arora
{"title":"共同决策:产后避孕咨询的前进之路。","authors":"Brooke W Bullington,&nbsp;Asha Sata,&nbsp;Kavita Shah Arora","doi":"10.2147/OAJC.S360833","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There are multi-level barriers that impact uptake of postpartum contraception and result in disparities, including clinical barriers such as provider bias. Fortunately, clinicians have direct control over their contraceptive counseling practices, and thus reducing structural barriers is actionable through high quality contraceptive counseling that equips patients with the knowledge and guidance they need to fulfill their reproductive desires. Yet, many commonly employed contraceptive counseling strategies, like One Key Question and WHO tiered contraceptive counseling, are not patient-driven, do not account for the important nuances of contraceptive choices, and are not focused specifically on the postpartum period. Given the history of eugenics and reproductive coercion in the US, supporting patient through their contraceptive decision-making process is especially vital. Additionally, contraceptive preferences vary based on patient-level factors and fluctuate over time and counseling should account for such differences. Shared contraceptive decision-making occurs when patients provide input on their values, desires, and preferences and clinicians share medical knowledge and evidence-based information without judgement. This approach is considered the most ethically sound form of counseling, as it maximizes patient autonomy. Shared decision-making also has clinical benefits, including increased patient satisfaction. In sum, shared contraceptive decision-making should be universally adopted to promote ethical, high-quality care and reproductive autonomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":74348,"journal":{"name":"Open access journal of contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fc/22/oajc-13-121.PMC9423116.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared Decision-Making: The Way Forward for Postpartum Contraceptive Counseling.\",\"authors\":\"Brooke W Bullington,&nbsp;Asha Sata,&nbsp;Kavita Shah Arora\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/OAJC.S360833\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There are multi-level barriers that impact uptake of postpartum contraception and result in disparities, including clinical barriers such as provider bias. Fortunately, clinicians have direct control over their contraceptive counseling practices, and thus reducing structural barriers is actionable through high quality contraceptive counseling that equips patients with the knowledge and guidance they need to fulfill their reproductive desires. Yet, many commonly employed contraceptive counseling strategies, like One Key Question and WHO tiered contraceptive counseling, are not patient-driven, do not account for the important nuances of contraceptive choices, and are not focused specifically on the postpartum period. Given the history of eugenics and reproductive coercion in the US, supporting patient through their contraceptive decision-making process is especially vital. Additionally, contraceptive preferences vary based on patient-level factors and fluctuate over time and counseling should account for such differences. Shared contraceptive decision-making occurs when patients provide input on their values, desires, and preferences and clinicians share medical knowledge and evidence-based information without judgement. This approach is considered the most ethically sound form of counseling, as it maximizes patient autonomy. Shared decision-making also has clinical benefits, including increased patient satisfaction. In sum, shared contraceptive decision-making should be universally adopted to promote ethical, high-quality care and reproductive autonomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74348,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open access journal of contraception\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fc/22/oajc-13-121.PMC9423116.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open access journal of contraception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S360833\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open access journal of contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJC.S360833","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

有多层障碍影响产后避孕的接受并导致差异,包括临床障碍,如提供者偏见。幸运的是,临床医生可以直接控制他们的避孕咨询实践,因此通过高质量的避孕咨询,为患者提供满足生殖欲望所需的知识和指导,减少结构性障碍是可行的。然而,许多常用的避孕咨询策略,如“一个关键问题”和世卫组织分层避孕咨询,不是以患者为导向的,没有考虑到避孕选择的重要细微差别,也没有专门关注产后时期。鉴于优生学和生殖强迫在美国的历史,支持患者通过他们的避孕决策过程是特别重要的。此外,避孕偏好因患者水平因素而异,随时间而波动,咨询应考虑到这种差异。当患者就其价值观、愿望和偏好提供意见,而临床医生在不加评判的情况下分享医学知识和循证信息时,就会发生共同的避孕决策。这种方法被认为是最合乎道德的咨询形式,因为它最大限度地提高了患者的自主权。共同决策也有临床益处,包括提高患者满意度。总之,应普遍采用共同的避孕决策,以促进伦理、高质量的护理和生殖自主。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Shared Decision-Making: The Way Forward for Postpartum Contraceptive Counseling.

There are multi-level barriers that impact uptake of postpartum contraception and result in disparities, including clinical barriers such as provider bias. Fortunately, clinicians have direct control over their contraceptive counseling practices, and thus reducing structural barriers is actionable through high quality contraceptive counseling that equips patients with the knowledge and guidance they need to fulfill their reproductive desires. Yet, many commonly employed contraceptive counseling strategies, like One Key Question and WHO tiered contraceptive counseling, are not patient-driven, do not account for the important nuances of contraceptive choices, and are not focused specifically on the postpartum period. Given the history of eugenics and reproductive coercion in the US, supporting patient through their contraceptive decision-making process is especially vital. Additionally, contraceptive preferences vary based on patient-level factors and fluctuate over time and counseling should account for such differences. Shared contraceptive decision-making occurs when patients provide input on their values, desires, and preferences and clinicians share medical knowledge and evidence-based information without judgement. This approach is considered the most ethically sound form of counseling, as it maximizes patient autonomy. Shared decision-making also has clinical benefits, including increased patient satisfaction. In sum, shared contraceptive decision-making should be universally adopted to promote ethical, high-quality care and reproductive autonomy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Patient Perceived Quality of Virtual Group Contraception Counseling. Prevalence of Depression Among Women Using Hormonal Contraceptives in Mogadishu, Somalia: A Cross-Sectional Study. Is There Still a Role for Sterilization by Tubal Ligation as a Contraceptive Method? Contraception in Medically Complex Adolescents and Young Adults Contraceptive Utilization and Its Associated Factors Among Married Women in West African Countries: A Population-Based Survey Using Multinomial Logistic Regression
×
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