Does vasectomy explain the difference in tubal sterilization rates between black and white women?

Male or female sterilization - the decision making process: Counselling and regret

OBJECTIVE(S)

To analyze the decision-making process of both male and female sterilization in order to improve counselling and prevent regret after sterilization in the future.

STUDY DESIGN

An online questionnaire regarding sterilization (counselling, sources of information and regret) was promoted on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. A total of 1107 men and women who had undergone or considered sterilization in the Netherlands filled in the questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 88.9 % of the sterilized group and 67.4 % in the considered group responded that they felt well informed when they considered sterilization. However, less than half of the participants in both groups knew about all different sterilization methods. In both groups participants reported they consulted their partner the most when they considered sterilization. After sterilization 7.7 % reported having regret. Regret was reported more often when participants were sterilized ≤ 30 years. Most important reasons for regret reported by males were complications, pain, a new wish to conceive and divorce/remarriage. Most important reasons for regret reported by females were pain, complications, a new wish to conceive and menstrual symptoms. A total of 21.1 % in the sterilized and 38.0 % in the considered group responded they would have liked to use a decision aid when they considered sterilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this study provide insight in the decision-making process regarding sterilization. There is a lack of knowledge of different methods of sterilization and 7.7% regrets their sterilization afterwards. Furthermore, the results show an importance of developing a decision aid for couples considering sterilization.

Vasectomy Knowledge and Interest Among U.S. Men Who Do Not Intend to Have More Children

Vasectomy is used less often than female sterilization, and many men who do not want more children may lack accurate information about vasectomy. Between May and June 2018, we used a nationally representative online panel to survey U.S. men between 25 and 55 years of age who did not want more children about their vasectomy knowledge. We also asked about interest in undergoing the procedure if it were free or low cost and explored whether a paragraph addressing common misperceptions was associated with interest. We assessed characteristics associated with high vasectomy knowledge (≥3 accurate responses to four questions about vasectomy's effect on sexual functioning and method efficacy) and vasectomy interest, using chi-square tests and multivariable-adjusted Poisson regression. Of 620 men surveyed, 564 had complete data on the outcomes and covariates of interest. Overall, 51% of respondents demonstrated high vasectomy knowledge. Men who knew someone who had a vasectomy were more likely to have high knowledge (prevalence ratio [PR]: 1.50; 95% CI [1.22, 1.85]). One-third of the sample (35%) said they would consider getting a vasectomy. Men with high (vs. moderate/low) knowledge were more likely (PR: 1.36; 95% CI [1.04, 1.77]) to consider getting a vasectomy. Race/ethnicity, income level, and receiving the informational paragraph were not associated with vasectomy interest. Greater vasectomy knowledge affects men's interest in the procedure. Given that many U.S. men lack accurate knowledge, efforts are needed to address misinformation and increase awareness about vasectomy to ensure men have the information they need to meet or contribute to reproductive goals.

Racial and ethnic differences in the adoption of opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention in the United States

BACKGROUND

Clinicians in the United States have rapidly adopted opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention. However, little is known about racial and ethnic differences in opportunistic salpingectomy adoption. Surgical innovations in gynecology may be adopted differentially across racial and ethnic groups, exacerbating current disparities in quality of care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate racial and ethnic differences in opportunistic salpingectomy adoption across inpatient and outpatient settings and assess the effect of national guidelines supporting opportunistic salpingectomy use on these differences.

STUDY DESIGN

A sample of 650,905 women aged 18 to 50 years undergoing hysterectomy with ovarian conservation or surgical sterilization from 2011 to 2018 was identified using the Premier Healthcare Database, an all-payer hospital administrative database, including more than 700 hospitals across the United States. The association between race and ethnicity and opportunistic salpingectomy use was examined using multivariable-adjusted mixed-effects log-binomial regression models accounting for hospital-level clustering. Models included race and ethnicity by year of surgery (2011-2013 [before guideline] and 2014-2018 [after guideline]) interaction term to test whether racial and ethnic differences in opportunistic salpingectomy adoption changed with the release of national guidelines supporting opportunistic salpingectomy use.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2018, 82,792 women underwent hysterectomy and opportunistic salpingectomy (non-Hispanic White, 60.3%; non-Hispanic Black, 18.8%; Hispanic, 12.2%; non-Hispanic other race, 8.7%) and 23,398 women underwent opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization (non-Hispanic White, 64.7%; non-Hispanic Black, 10.8%; Hispanic, 16.7%; non-Hispanic other race, 7.8%). The proportion of hysterectomy procedures involving an opportunistic salpingectomy increased from 6.3% in 2011 to 59.7% in 2018 (9.5-fold increase), and the proportion of sterilization procedures involving an opportunistic salpingectomy increased from 0.7% in 2011 to 19.4% in 2018 (27.7-fold increase). In multivariable-adjusted models, non-Hispanic Black (risk ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.97), Hispanic (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.00), and non-Hispanic other race women (risk ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-0.96) were less likely to undergo hysterectomy and opportunistic salpingectomy than non-Hispanic White women. A significant interaction between race and ethnicity and year of surgery was noted in non-Hispanic Black compared with non-Hispanic White women (P<.001), with a reduction in differences in hysterectomy and opportunistic salpingectomy use after national guideline release (risk ratio_2011-2013, 0.80 [95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.88]; risk ratio_2014-2018, 0.98 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.01]). Moreover, non-Hispanic Black women were less likely to undergo an opportunistic salpingectomy for sterilization than non-Hispanic White women (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.95), with no difference by year of surgery (P=.62). Stratified analyses by hysterectomy route and age at surgery revealed similar results.

CONCLUSION

Although opportunistic salpingectomy for ovarian cancer prevention has been rapidly adopted in the United States, our findings suggested that its adoption has not been equitable across racial and ethnic groups. Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic other race women were less likely to undergo opportunistic salpingectomy than non-Hispanic White women even after adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, procedural, hospital, and provider characteristics. These differences persisted after the release of national guidelines supporting opportunistic salpingectomy use. Future research should focus on understanding the reasons for these differences to inform interventions that promote equity in opportunistic salpingectomy use.

Reproductive health care in Catholic-owned hospitals

Mergers that affiliate a hospital with a Catholic owner, network, or system reduce the set of possible reproductive medical procedures since Catholic hospitals have strict prohibitions on contraception. Using changes in ownership of hospitals, we find that Catholic hospitals reduce the per bed rates of tubal ligations by 31%, whereas there is no significant change in related permitted procedures such as Caesarian sections. However, across a variety of measures, we find minimal overall welfare reductions. Still, fewer tubal ligations increase the risk of unintended pregnancies across the United States, imposing a potentially substantial cost for less reliable contraception on women and their partners.

Female Sterilization and Cognitive Disability in the United States, 2011-2015

OBJECTIVE

To compare female sterilization among three mutually exclusive groups of females: 1) those without any self-reported disability, 2) those with noncognitive disabilities (sensory or physical disabilities), and 3) those with cognitive disabilities.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of nationally representative data from the National Survey of Family Growth 2011-2015, which surveyed individuals aged 15-44 years in the U.S. civilian population. Disability status (self-reported) was ascertained using a standard set of questions about hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living difficulties. Regression models were used to calculate odds of female sterilization, hysterectomies, and age of sterilization while accounting for sociodemographic differences.

RESULTS

Female sterilization rates were higher among females with cognitive (22.1% [n=272]) and noncognitive disabilities (24.7% [n=150]) than among those without disabilities (14.8% [n=1,132]). After adjusting for sociodemographic covariates, females with cognitive disabilities had significantly higher odds of female sterilization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% CI 1.19-1.98, P<.01) and hysterectomy (adjusted OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.53-4.56, P<.001) than those without cognitive disabilities. Females with cognitive disabilities also underwent sterilization at significantly younger ages (27.3 years, 95% CI 27.0-27.6) than those with noncognitive disabilities (28.3 years, 95% CI 27.9-28.8) and those without any disability (29.8 years, 95% CI 29.5-30.0).

CONCLUSION

U.S. females with cognitive disabilities were more likely to have undergone female sterilizations and hysterectomies and at younger ages than those with other disabilities or without disabilities. Drivers of these disability-related differences in female sterilization patterns must be explored.

HIGH PREVALENCE OF VOLUNTARY STERILIZATION AMONG AMERICAN WOMEN EXPLAINED BY TRADE-OFFS RESULTING FROM MALE PARENTAL COMMITMENT

Tubal ligation is the modal form of family planning among American women aged 30 and older. As the preference for tubal ligation over cheaper, lower risk and more reliable methods, such as vasectomy, has puzzled experts, a theoretical approach that explains this preference would be useful. The present study investigates the high prevalence of voluntary sterilization among American women from the perspective of life history theory, arguing that the trade-offs between investing in current and future offspring will favour tubal ligation when women cannot obtain reliable male commitment to future parental investment. Data came from the National Survey of Fertility Barriers (NSFB), a nationally representative survey of 4712 American women aged 25-45 conducted between 2004 and 2007. Four novel predictions of the prevalence of tubal ligation, drawn from life history theory, were developed and tested: 1) it is most common among unpartnered women with children, and least common among married women with children; 2) it is negatively correlated with age at first birth; 3) it is least common among highly educated women without children, and most common among less educated women with children; and 4) among women with two or more children, it is positively correlated with lifetime number of long-term partners. These predictions were tested using multivariate regression analysis. The first prediction was not supported: women with children were more likely to be sterilized, regardless of their marital status. The other three predictions were all supported by the data. The results suggest that trade-offs influence women's decisions to undergo voluntary sterilization. Women are most likely to opt for tubal ligation when the costs of an additional child will impinge on their ability to invest in existing offspring, especially in the context of reduced male commitment.

Barriers to Offering Vasectomy at Publicly Funded Family Planning Organizations in Texas

Few publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States offer vasectomy, but little is known about the reasons this method is not more widely available at these sources of care. Between February 2012 and February 2015, three waves of in-depth interviews were conducted with program administrators at 54 family planning organizations in Texas. Participants described their organization’s vasectomy service model and factors that influenced how frequently vasectomy was provided. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a theme-based approach. Service models and barriers to providing vasectomy were compared by organization type (e.g., women’s health center, public health clinic) and receipt of Title X funding. Two thirds of organizations did not offer vasectomy on-site or pay for referrals with family planning funding; nine organizations frequently provided vasectomy. Organizations did not widely offer vasectomy because they could not find providers that would accept the low reimbursement for the procedure or because they lacked funding for men’s reproductive health care. Respondents often did not perceive men’s reproductive health care as a service priority and commented that men, especially Latinos, had limited interest in vasectomy. Although organizations of all types reported barriers, women’s health centers and Title X-funded organizations more frequently offered vasectomy by conducting tailored outreach to men and vasectomy providers. A combination of factors operating at the health systems and provider level influence the availability of vasectomy at publicly funded family planning organizations in Texas. Multilevel approaches that address key barriers to vasectomy provision would help organizations offer comprehensive contraceptive services.

Barriers to Offering Vasectomy at Publicly Funded Family Planning Organizations in Texas

Few publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States offer vasectomy, but little is known about the reasons this method is not more widely available at these sources of care. Between February 2012 and February 2015, three waves of in-depth interviews were conducted with program administrators at 54 family planning organizations in Texas. Participants described their organization’s vasectomy service model and factors that influenced how frequently vasectomy was provided. Interview transcripts were coded and analyzed using a theme-based approach. Service models and barriers to providing vasectomy were compared by organization type (e.g., women’s health center, public health clinic) and receipt of Title X funding. Two thirds of organizations did not offer vasectomy on-site or pay for referrals with family planning funding; nine organizations frequently provided vasectomy. Organizations did not widely offer vasectomy because they could not find providers that would accept the low reimbursement for the procedure or because they lacked funding for men’s reproductive health care. Respondents often did not perceive men’s reproductive health care as a service priority and commented that men, especially Latinos, had limited interest in vasectomy. Although organizations of all types reported barriers, women’s health centers and Title X-funded organizations more frequently offered vasectomy by conducting tailored outreach to men and vasectomy providers. A combination of factors operating at the health systems and provider level influence the availability of vasectomy at publicly funded family planning organizations in Texas. Multilevel approaches that address key barriers to vasectomy provision would help organizations offer comprehensive contraceptive services.

Perceived Interest in Vasectomy among Latina Women and their Partners in a Community with Limited Access to Female Sterilization

The low prevalence of vasectomy among Latino men in the United States is often attributed to cultural characteristics despite limited evidence supporting this hypothesis. We assessed male partners' perceived willingness to undergo vasectomy through surveys with 470 Mexican-origin women who did not want more children in El Paso, Texas. Overall, 32% of women reported that their partner would be interested in getting a vasectomy. In multivariable analysis, completing high school (OR=2.03 [1.05, 3.95]), having some college education (OR=2.97 [1.36, 6.48]) or receiving US government assistance (OR=1.95 [1.1, 3.45]) was associated with partners' perceived interest. Additionally, we conducted two focus groups on men's knowledge and attitudes about vasectomy with partners of a subsample of these women. Despite some misperceptions, male partners were willing to get a vasectomy, but were concerned about cost and taking time off work to recover. Health education and affordable vasectomy services could increase vasectomy use among Mexican-origin men.

Surgical sterilization, regret, and race: contemporary patterns

Surgical sterilization is a relatively permanent form of contraception that has been disproportionately used by Black, Hispanic, and Native American women in the United States in the past. We use a nationally representative sample of 4592 women ages 25-45 to determine whether sterilization continues to be more common and consequential by race for reproductive-age women. Results indicate that Native American and Black women are more likely to be sterilized than non-Hispanic White women, and Hispanic and Native American women are more likely than non-Hispanic White women to report that their sterilization surgeries prevent them from conceiving children they want. Reasons for sterilization differ significantly by race. These findings suggest that stratified reproduction has not ended in the United States and that the patterns and consequences of sterilization continue to vary by race.

Reconsidering racial/ethnic differences in sterilization in the United States

OBJECTIVE

Cross-sectional studies have found that low-income and racial/ethnic minority women are more likely to use female sterilization and less likely to rely on a partner's vasectomy than women with higher incomes and whites. However, studies of pregnant and postpartum women report that racial/ethnic minorities, particularly low-income minority women, face greater barriers in obtaining a sterilization than do whites and those with higher incomes. In this paper, we address this apparent contradiction by examining the likelihood a woman gets a sterilization following each delivery, which removes from the comparison any difference in the number of births she has experienced.

STUDY DESIGN

Using the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth, we fit multivariable-adjusted logistic and Cox regression models to estimate odds ratios and hazard ratios for getting a postpartum or interval sterilization, respectively, according to race/ethnicity and insurance status.

RESULTS

Women's chances of obtaining a sterilization varied by both race/ethnicity and insurance. Among women with Medicaid, whites were more likely to use female sterilization than African Americans and Latinas. Privately insured whites were more likely to rely on vasectomy than African Americans and Latinas, but among women with Medicaid-paid deliveries reliance on vasectomy was low for all racial/ethnic groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-income racial/ethnic minority women are less likely to undergo sterilization following delivery compared to low-income whites and privately insured women of similar parities. This could result from unique barriers to obtaining permanent contraception and could expose women to the risk of future unintended pregnancies.

IMPLICATIONS

Low-income minorities are less likely to undergo sterilization than low-income whites and privately insured minorities, which may result from barriers to obtaining permanent contraception, and exposes women to unintended pregnancies.

He’s a Real Man

Vasectomy has advantages with respect to safety and cost when compared with female sterilization. The reasons underlying the overall low use of vasectomy, particularly among Black and Latinos, have not been adequately explored. The goals of this study were to (a) explore the social context of vasectomy decisions and (b) generate hypotheses about the social factors contributing to differences in vasectomy use by race/ethnicity. Fourteen group and nine couples interviews were conducted. Participants were 37 heterosexual couples aged 25 to 55 years who had reached their desired family size and self-identified as Black, Latino, or White. Participants discussed reasons that men and women would or would not select male sterilization. Reasons to select vasectomy included a desire to care for their current family, sharing contraceptive responsibility, and infidelity. Reasons not to select vasectomy included negative associations with the term sterilization, loss of manhood, and permanence. Misconceptions about vasectomy included misunderstandings about the vasectomy procedure and adverse postvasectomy sexual function. In addition, Black and Latino participants cited perceived ease of reversibility of female sterilization and lack of support around vasectomy as reasons not to choose it. Improving communication and social support for vasectomy, particularly among Black and Latino communities, may improve vasectomy utilization. Misconceptions regarding female and male sterilization should be targeted in counseling sessions to ensure men, women, and couples are making informed contraceptive decisions.

Female sterilisation in the United States

Female sterilisation is a safe and effective form of permanent birth control. In the United States (US), it is still the second most commonly used form of contraception overall and is the most frequently used method among married women and among women over 30 years of age. Although several European countries have noted a sharp decline in the number of women electing tubal sterilisation in recent years, such trends have not been as obvious in the US. While female sterilisation remains popular, there are considerable system-level barriers to getting the procedure for certain segments of the population as well as emerging concerns about appropriate utilisation of this contraceptive method in light of newer, reversible options and the knowledge that regret after permanent contraception is high. Given the complexity of this decision-making process, it is critical that providers ensure at the very least that women are aware of the potential disadvantages of tubal occlusion and are knowledgeable of other highly effective contraceptive methods that are available but vastly underutilised in the US, namely, vasectomy, intrauterine contraceptives, and implants.

Vasectomy: the other (better) form of sterilization

Male sterilization (vasectomy) is the most effective form and only long-acting form of contraception available to men in the United States. Compared to female sterilization, it is more efficacious, more cost-effective, and has lower rates of complications. Despite these advantages, in the United States, vasectomy is utilized at less than half the rate of female sterilization. In addition, vasectomy is least utilized among black and Latino populations, groups with the highest rates of female sterilization. This review provides an overview of vasectomy use and techniques, and explores reasons for the disparity in vasectomy utilization in the United States.

Racial differences in vasectomy utilization in the United States: data from the national survey of family growth

OBJECTIVES

To explore whether health care, socioeconomic, or personal characteristics account for disparities observed in the utilization of vasectomy. More than 500,000 vasectomies are performed annually in the United States. The safety and efficacy of vasectomy make it a good family planning option, yet the factors related to use of male surgical sterilization are not well understood. In this analysis, we examined differences in vasectomy rates according to factors such as race and socioeconomic status.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the male sample of the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth to examine the use of vasectomy among the sample of men aged 30-45 (n = 2161). Demographic, socioeconomic, and reproductive characteristics were analyzed to assess associations with vasectomy.

RESULTS

About 11.4% of men aged 30-45 years reported having a vasectomy, representing approximately 3.6 million American men. Although 14.1% of white men had a vasectomy, only 3.7% of black and 4.5% of Hispanic men reported undergoing vasectomy. On multivariate analysis, a significant difference in the odds of vasectomy by race/ethnicity remained, with black (odds ratio = 0.20, 0.09-0.45) and Hispanic men (odds ratio = 0.41, 0.18-0.95) having a significantly lower rate of vasectomy independent of demographic, partner, and socioeconomic factors. Having ever been married, fathering 2 or more children, older age, and higher income were the factors associated with vasectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

After accounting for reproductive history, partner, and demographic characteristics, black and Hispanic men were less likely to rely on vasectomy for contraception. Further research is needed to identify the reasons for these race/ethnic differences and to identify factors that impede minority men's reliance on this means of fertility control.

Low rates of vasectomy among minorities: a result of differential receipt of counseling?

Male sterilization is a highly effective contraceptive method that is underused especially among minorities. This analysis examined the association between race/ethnicity and receipt of sterilization counseling. This study used data collected by the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. The analysis included men 15 to 44 years old who had not undergone sterilization. The outcome was receipt of sterilization counseling in the 12 months prior to interview, and the primary predictor was race/ethnicity. Sociodemographic characteristics, history of fathering an unintended birth, intention for more children, and access to health care were examined as confounders. Sixty-one (1.7%) men reported receiving sterilization counseling. Although counseling was reported more commonly by Black and Hispanic men compared with White men, the rates were not significantly different (odds ratio [OR] = 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.8-7.1 and OR = 1.9, 95% CI = 0.9-4.1, respectively). In this nationally representative sample of men aged 15 to 44 years, there were exceedingly low rates of sterilization counseling for all men regardless of race/ethnicity.