Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:37:38.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A survey of attitudes towards permanent contraceptive methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

A. E. Reading ,
C. M. Sledmere  and
J. R. Newton
A. E. Reading
Affiliation:
WHO Collaborating Centre for Clinical Research in Human Reproduction, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital Medical School, Denmark Hill, London
C. M. Sledmere
Affiliation:
WHO Collaborating Centre for Clinical Research in Human Reproduction, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital Medical School, Denmark Hill, London
J. R. Newton
Affiliation:
WHO Collaborating Centre for Clinical Research in Human Reproduction, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital Medical School, Denmark Hill, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In this survey of attitudes towards permanent contraceptive methods, four groups were studied: (A) men having undergone a vasectomy 12 months previously (n = 61); (B) men currently attending for vasectomy (n = 58); (C) female partners of men currently undergoing vasectomy (n = 60); and (D) women undergoing sterilization by tubal ligation (n = 52). All patients completed a questionnaire which included questions on the reasons for selecting their chosen method, and attitudes towards permanent methods and hypothetical pills and injectable contraceptives for men. Results showed that contraception was generally regarded as a mutual responsibility. This attitude was more pronounced in the vasectomy groups than among the sterilization women. Generally favourable reactions were elicited with respect to vasectomy, although substantial proportions expressed a preference for alternative methods (40%). Women undergoing sterilization exhibited predominantly negative attitudes towards this procedure. The implications of these findings, in terms of enhancing the acceptability of new male methods and improving subsequent adjustment to currently available permanent methods, are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , October 1980 , pp. 383 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © 1980, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balswick, J.O. (1972) Attitudes of lower class males toward taking a male birth control pill. Fam. Coordinator, 21, 195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borland, B.L. (1972) Behavioural factors in non-coital methods of contraception: a review. Soc. Sci. Med. 6, 163.Google Scholar
De Kretser, D.M. (1976) Towards a pill for men. Proc. R. Soc. B, 195, 161.Google Scholar
Diller, L. & Hembree, W. (1977) Male contraception and family planning: a social and historical review. Fert. Steril. 28, 1271.Google ScholarPubMed
Djerassi, C. (1970) Birth control after 1984. Science, N.Y. 169, 941.Google Scholar
Frank, E., Anderson, C. & Rubenstein, O. (1978) Sexual dysfunction in normal couples. New Engl. J. Med. 299, 111.Google Scholar
Freedman, R., Hermalin, A.L. & Chang, M.C. (1975) Do statements about desired family size predict fertility? The case of Taiwan. Demography, 12, 407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freund, M. & Davis, J.E. (1973) A follow up study of the effects of vasectomy on sexual behaviour. J. Sex Res. 9, 241.Google Scholar
Gandy, R.J. (1978) Characteristics of vasectomy patients at a family planning clinic. J. biosoc. Sci. 10, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, A. & Goldberg, R.J. (1974) Psychological aspects of vasectomy in Latin America. J. Sex Res. 10, 278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldzieher, J.N. (1968) The incidences of side effects with oral or intrauterine contraceptives. Am. J. Obstet. Gynec. 102, 91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kar, S.B. (1976) Consistency between fertility attitudes and behaviour: conceptual model. Popul. Stud. 32, 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, L., Keith, O., Russell, R. & Wells, J. (1975) Attitudes of men towards contraception. Arch. Gynaek. 22, 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J.F. (1977) Acceptability of fertility regulating methods: designing technology to fit people. Prev. Med. 6, 65.Google Scholar
Mcewan, J. (1978) Social characteristics of diaphragm users in a family planning clinic. J. biosoc. Sci. 10, 159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Measham, A.R. & Martinez, E. (1974) The role of the family in post partum family planning acceptance. Int. J. Obstet. Gynec. 12, 66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melzack, R. (1973) The Puzzle of Pain. Penguin, Harmondsworth, Middlesex.Google Scholar
Morehead, J.E. (1975) Intrauterine device retention. A study of selected social-psychological aspects. Am. J. Pub. Hlth. 65, 760.Google Scholar
Nash, J.L. & Rich, J.D. (1972) The sexual aftereffects of vasectomy. Pert. Steril. 23, 715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neil, J.R., Hammond, G.T., Noble, A.D., Rushton, L. & Letchworth, A.T. (1975) Late complications of sterilisation by laparoscopy and tubal ligation. Lancet, ii, 699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, M.A. & Wood, H.A. (1978) Demographic and socio-economic characteristics of men choosing vasectomy.J. biosoc. Sci. 10, 133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearlman, C.K. & Kobashi, L.I. (1972) Frequency of intercourse in men. J. Urol. 107, 298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pfeiffer, E., Verwoerot, A. & Wang, H.S. (1968) Sexual behaviour in aged men and women. Archs gen. Psychiat. 19, 753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratt, W. (1975) One in five US couples relies on sterilisation; number of procedures doubled in four years. Int. Fam. Plann. Digest, 1, 7.Google Scholar
Reading, A.E. (1979) The short term effects of psychological preparation for surgery. Soc. Sci. Med. 13a, 641.Google Scholar
Reading, A.E., Harris, C. & Newton, J.R. (1979) Attitudes and choice of contraceptive. Psychol. Rep. 44, 1243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reading, A.E. & Newton, J.R. (1977) Psychological factors and IUD use—a review. J. biosoc. Sci. 9, 317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reading, A.E., Round, L., Booth, N. & Newton, J.R. (1980) The effects of psychological preparation for minor gynaecological surgery. J. psychosom Res. In press.Google Scholar
Rodgers, D.A., Ziegler, F.J. & Levy, N. (1965) Prevailing cultural attitudes about vasectomy: a possible explanation of postoperative psychological response. Psychosom. Med. 29, 367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherbee, H., Smith, M.C. & Benfield, W. (1975) The pill for men: attitudes of college students. Med. Marketing Media, 10, 31.Google Scholar
Wiest, W.M. & Janke, L.D. (1974) A methodological critique of research on psychological effects of vasectomy. Psychosom. Med. 36, 438.Google Scholar
Willson, J.R., Ledger, W.J. & Lovell, J. (1967) Intrauterine contraceptive devices: a comparison between their use in indigent and private patients. Obstet. Gynec. N.Y. 29, 59.Google ScholarPubMed
WHO (1978) Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction Annual Report. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Wright, N., Wiggens, P., Johnson, R. & Vessey, M. (1977) The use of sterilisation as a method of birth control among participants in the Oxford/FPA contraceptive study. Fert. Contracept. 1, 41.Google Scholar