A study of physician recommendations for reversible contraceptive methods using standardized patients
- PMID: 22151509
- PMCID: PMC3537260
- DOI: 10.1363/4322411
A study of physician recommendations for reversible contraceptive methods using standardized patients
Abstract
Context: Health care providers may influence patients' choice of contraceptive method, yet little is known about the recommendations they make to their patients.
Methods: In 2007-2008, a total of 468 physicians at four family medicine and obstetrics and gynecology meetings were randomly assigned to view one of 18 videos of a patient seeking contraceptive advice; the patients were standardized for most relevant behaviors and characteristics, but differed by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status and gynecologic history. Participants provided their demographic and practice characteristics and completed a survey about their contraceptive recommendations for the patient. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify associations between physician characteristics and recommendations for specific contraceptive methods.
Results: The most frequently recommended methods were the pill (89%) and ring (80%), followed by the levonor-gestrel IUD (64%), patch (56%), injectable (49%) and copper IUD (45%). Oral contraceptives were more likely to be recommended by private practice physicians than by academic physicians (odds ratio, 2.9). Recommendations for the ring were less common among family physicians and those 56 or older than among obstetrician-gynecologists and those 35 or younger (0.6 and 0.3, respectively), and more common among physicians in private practice than among those in academia (2.4). The patch and injectable were more commonly recommended by family physicians than by obstetrician-gynecologists (2.6 and 2.5, respectively). Both IUD types were recommended less often by physicians 36 or older than by younger ones (0.2-0.5).
Discussion: The advice women receive about contraception may vary according to the characteristics of their provider. Research on the reasons for these differences is needed.
Copyright © 2011 by the Guttmacher Institute.
Similar articles
-
Copper intrauterine device for emergency contraception: clinical practice among contraceptive providers.Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):220-6. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182429e0d. Obstet Gynecol. 2012. PMID: 22270272 Free PMC article.
-
Emergency contraception provision: a survey of Michigan physicians from five medical specialties.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007 May;16(4):489-98. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2006.0196. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2007. PMID: 17521252
-
Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: long-acting reversible contraception practices and education.Contraception. 2014 Jun;89(6):578-83. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.004. Epub 2014 Feb 18. Contraception. 2014. PMID: 24656553
-
Private physicians and the provision of contraceptives to adolescents.Fam Plann Perspect. 1984 Mar-Apr;16(2):83-6. Fam Plann Perspect. 1984. PMID: 6723944
-
Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 1 of 4).J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015 Oct;37(10):936-42. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30033-0. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015. PMID: 26606712 English, French.
Cited by
-
Agreement between Self-Reported "Ideal" and Currently Used Contraceptive Methods among Women Veterans Using the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.Womens Health Issues. 2020 Jul-Aug;30(4):283-291. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2020.03.002. Epub 2020 Apr 19. Womens Health Issues. 2020. PMID: 32321666 Free PMC article.
-
Perceived abortion stigma and psychological well-being over five years after receiving or being denied an abortion.PLoS One. 2020 Jan 29;15(1):e0226417. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226417. eCollection 2020. PLoS One. 2020. PMID: 31995559 Free PMC article.
-
Development of a brief questionnaire to assess contraceptive intent.Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Nov;98(11):1425-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.05.016. Epub 2015 Jun 3. Patient Educ Couns. 2015. PMID: 26104994 Free PMC article.
-
Counseling about IUDs: a mixed-methods analysis.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014 Sep;46(3):133-40. doi: 10.1363/46e0814. Epub 2014 Mar 13. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014. PMID: 24628710 Free PMC article.
-
Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.Reprod Health. 2017 Sep 26;14(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12978-017-0380-8. Reprod Health. 2017. PMID: 28950913 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Russell ML, Love EJ. Contraceptive prescription: physician beliefs, attitudes and socio-demographic characteristics. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 1991;82(4):259–263. - PubMed
-
- Harper CC, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2008;111(6):1359–1369. - PubMed
-
- Landry DJ, Wei J, Frost JJ. Public and private providers’ involvement in improving their patients’ contraceptive use. Contraception. 2008;78(1):42–51. - PubMed
-
- Schreiber CA, et al. Training and attitudes about contraceptive management across primary care specialties: a survey of graduating residents. Contraception. 2006;73(6):618–622. - PubMed
-
- Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2002;99(2):275–280. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical