Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women.
PDF (1.7M)
Journal: 1998/August - American Journal of Public Health
ISSN: 0090-0036
PUBMED: 9702143
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE
This study examined correlates of Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women.
METHODS
Interviews were completed in family planning clinics in 4 Florida counties with 1152 Norplant users and 1268 nonusers, with follow-up interviews with a subsample up to 1 year later. Logistic regression models estimated the associations of socio-demographic and medical characteristics with Norplant selection and method satisfaction.
RESULTS
Odds ratios for Norplant selection were significantly greater among women who planned to have children in 5 or more years, those who were "offered" Norplant, those who lived in Palm Beach County, those who were using drugs, and those who were Medicaid clients. Women younger than 17 and those who learned about Norplant from a friend were twice as likely as others to select Norplant. Ninety-two percent of Norplant users were satisfied with the method; women with side effects and those who felt pressure to select a method were significantly less likely than others to be satisfied.
CONCLUSIONS
Norplant provides an acceptable and satisfying method of birth control for many low-income women. Proper counseling about all methods of birth control and about Norplant's side effects remains critical to the appropriate delivery of this method.
Open in
PUBMED | PMC | Google Scholar | Wikipedia
Relations:
Content
Citations
(1)
References
(24)
Drugs
(1)
Chemicals
(1)
Organisms
(1)
Processes
(1)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
Am J Public Health 88(8): 1175-1181
PMID: 9702143

Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study examined correlates of Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women. METHODS: Interviews were completed in family planning clinics in 4 Florida counties with 1152 Norplant users and 1268 nonusers, with follow-up interviews with a subsample up to 1 year later. Logistic regression models estimated the associations of socio-demographic and medical characteristics with Norplant selection and method satisfaction. RESULTS: Odds ratios for Norplant selection were significantly greater among women who planned to have children in 5 or more years, those who were "offered" Norplant, those who lived in Palm Beach County, those who were using drugs, and those who were Medicaid clients. Women younger than 17 and those who learned about Norplant from a friend were twice as likely as others to select Norplant. Ninety-two percent of Norplant users were satisfied with the method; women with side effects and those who felt pressure to select a method were significantly less likely than others to be satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Norplant provides an acceptable and satisfying method of birth control for many low-income women. Proper counseling about all methods of birth control and about Norplant's side effects remains critical to the appropriate delivery of this method.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.7M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
icon of scanned page 1175
1175
icon of scanned page 1176
1176
icon of scanned page 1177
1177
icon of scanned page 1178
1178
icon of scanned page 1179
1179
icon of scanned page 1180
1180
icon of scanned page 1181
1181

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Shoupe D, Mishell DR. Norplant: subdermal implant system for long-term contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989 May;160(5 Pt 2):1286–1292. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Sivin I. International experience with NORPLANT and NORPLANT-2 contraceptives. Stud Fam Plann. 1988 Mar-Apr;19(2):81–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Forrest JD, Kaeser L. Questions of balance: issues emerging from the introduction of the hormonal implant. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993 May-Jun;25(3):127–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Steinbock B. Coercion and long-term contraceptives. Hastings Cent Rep. 1995 Jan-Feb;25(1):S19–S22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Davidson AR, Kalmuss D. Topics for our times: Norplant coercion--an overstated threat. Am J Public Health. 1997 Apr;87(4):550–551.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Darney PD, Atkinson E, Tanner S, MacPherson S, Hellerstein S, Alvarado A. Acceptance and perceptions of NORPLANT among users in San Francisco, USA. Stud Fam Plann. 1990 May-Jun;21(3):152–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Frank ML, Poindexter AN, Johnson ML, Bateman L. Characteristics and attitudes of early contraceptive implant acceptors in Texas. Fam Plann Perspect. 1992 Sep-Oct;24(5):208–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cullins VE, Blumenthal PD, Remsburg RE, Huggins GR. Preliminary experience with Norplant in an inner city population. Contraception. 1993 Feb;47(2):193–203. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Frank ML, Poindexter AN, 3rd, Cornin LM, Cox CA, Bateman L. One-year experience with subdermal contraceptive implants in the United States. Contraception. 1993 Sep;48(3):229–243. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Eilers GM, Swanson TK. Women's satisfaction with Norplant as compared with oral contraceptives. J Fam Pract. 1994 Jun;38(6):596–600. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • van Amerongen D. Removal rates of subdermal levonorgestrel implants. J Reprod Med. 1994 Nov;39(11):873–876. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Crosby UD, Schwarz BE, Gluck KL, Heartwell SF. A preliminary report of Norplant implant insertions in a large urban family planning program. Contraception. 1993 Oct;48(4):359–366. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Musham C, Darr EG, Strossner ML. A qualitative study of the perceptions of dissatisfied Norplant users. J Fam Pract. 1995 May;40(5):465–470. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Zimmerman M, Haffey J, Crane E, Szumowski D, Alvarez F, Bhiromrut P, Brache V, Lubis F, Salah M, Shaaban M, et al. Assessing the acceptability of NORPLANT implants in four countries: findings from focus group research. Stud Fam Plann. 1990 Mar-Apr;21(2):92–103. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Opara JU, Ernst FA, Gaskin H, Smith L, Nevels HV. Factors associated with elective Norplant removal in black and white women. J Natl Med Assoc. 1997 Apr;89(4):237–240.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Cullins VE, Remsburg RE, Blumenthal PD, Huggins GR. Comparison of adolescent and adult experiences with Norplant levonorgestrel contraceptive implants. Obstet Gynecol. 1994 Jun;83(6):1026–1032. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Polaneczky M, Slap G, Forke C, Rappaport A, Sondheimer S. The use of levonorgestrel implants (Norplant) for contraception in adolescent mothers. N Engl J Med. 1994 Nov 3;331(18):1201–1206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Weisman CS, Plichta SB, Tirado DE, Dana KH. Comparison of contraceptive implant adopters and pill users in a family planning clinic in Baltimore. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993 Sep-Oct;25(5):224–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Humphries HO, Bauman KE. Condom use by Norplant users at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis. 1994 Jul-Aug;21(4):217–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Berenson AB, Wiemann CM. Use of levonorgestrel implants versus oral contraceptives in adolescence: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Apr;172(4 Pt 1):1128–1137. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Pariani S, Heer DM, Van Arsdol MD., Jr Does choice make a difference to contraceptive use? Evidence from east Java. Stud Fam Plann. 1991 Nov-Dec;22(6):384–390. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • King J. Helping patients choose an appropriate method of birth control. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 1992 Mar-Apr;17(2):91–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, London R, Borden S, Henneberry J, LaGuardia KD, Stewart F, Wilson TG, Wysocki S, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health. 1995 Apr;85(4):494–503.[PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Westfall JM, Main DS. The contraceptive implant and the injectable: a comparison of costs. Fam Plann Perspect. 1995 Jan-Feb;27(1):34–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Department of Health Policy and Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610-0177, USA.
Department of Health Policy and Epidemiology, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610-0177, USA.
Copyright notice
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined correlates of Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women. METHODS: Interviews were completed in family planning clinics in 4 Florida counties with 1152 Norplant users and 1268 nonusers, with follow-up interviews with a subsample up to 1 year later. Logistic regression models estimated the associations of socio-demographic and medical characteristics with Norplant selection and method satisfaction. RESULTS: Odds ratios for Norplant selection were significantly greater among women who planned to have children in 5 or more years, those who were "offered" Norplant, those who lived in Palm Beach County, those who were using drugs, and those who were Medicaid clients. Women younger than 17 and those who learned about Norplant from a friend were twice as likely as others to select Norplant. Ninety-two percent of Norplant users were satisfied with the method; women with side effects and those who felt pressure to select a method were significantly less likely than others to be satisfied. CONCLUSIONS: Norplant provides an acceptable and satisfying method of birth control for many low-income women. Proper counseling about all methods of birth control and about Norplant's side effects remains critical to the appropriate delivery of this method.
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.