Advertisement

Women's preferences for permanent contraception method and willingness to be randomized for a hypothetical trial

      Abstract

      Objective

      To understand women's preferences for permanent contraception by salpingectomy or tubal occlusion following standardized counseling and evaluate the practicality of a future randomized trial.

      Study design

      We invited pregnant and non-pregnant women planning permanent contraception at the University of California, Davis (UCD) and University of Tennessee (UT) Obstetrics and Gynecology clinics to participate. We enrolled women when they received routine counseling and signed procedure consent. Participants received standardized information sheets reviewing permanent contraception options based on pregnancy status then completed an anonymous survey with questions about demographics, method preference, and willingness to participate in a hypothetical randomized trial comparing salpingectomy and tubal occlusion. We evaluated predictors for salpingectomy preference using multivariable analysis.

      Results

      From July 2015 to October 2016, we enrolled 75 women at UCD and 63 women at UT. Overall, respondents preferred salpingectomy (63.0%); among the 47 women not currently pregnant at both sites, 40 (85.1%) preferred salpingectomy, most commonly because of higher efficacy. Although population characteristics differed significantly between the sites, only UCD site (aOR 4.2; 95% CI 1.9, 9.4) and non-pregnancy status (aOR 4.2; 95% CI 1.6, 10.8) predicted preference for salpingectomy in the multivariable model. Most participants (n=84, 60.9%) would not be willing to be randomized to a theoretical trial comparing salpingectomy and tubal occlusion procedures.

      Conclusion

      Among a diverse group of women from two different areas in the U.S. given a choice of permanent contraception methods, salpingectomy is preferred over tubal occlusion. Most women planning a permanent contraceptive procedure would not agree to a randomized comparison of these methods.

      Implications statement

      Salpingectomy, which offers theoretically higher efficacy and potentially greater ovarian cancer protection compared to tubal occlusion, is preferred by the majority of patients and should be offered to all women seeking permanent contraception. Differences in method choices less likely reflect the patient population and more likely the counseling provided.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kavanaugh M.L.
        • Jerman J.
        Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014.
        Contraception. 2018; 97: 14-21
        • Peterson H.B.
        • Xia Z.
        • Hughes J.M.
        • Wilcox L.S.
        • Tylor L.R.
        • Trussell J.
        The risk of pregnancy after tubal sterilization: findings from the U.S. collaborative review of sterilization.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 174: 1161-1168
        • Erickson B.K.
        • Conner M.G.
        • Landen Jr., C.N.
        The role of the fallopian tube in the origin of ovarian cancer.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 409-414
        • Creinin M.D.
        • Zite N.
        Female tubal sterilization: the time has come to routinely consider removal.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 124: 596-599
        • Cibula D.
        • Widschwendter M.
        • Majek O.
        • Dusek L.
        Tubal ligation and the risk of ovarian cancer: review and meta-analysis.
        Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17: 55-67
        • Sieh W.
        • Salvador S.
        • McGuire V.
        • Weber R.P.
        • Rossing M.A.
        • Risch H.
        • et al.
        Tubal ligation and risk of ovarian cancer subtypes: a pooled analysis of case-control studies.
        Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42: 579-589
        • Lessard-Anderson C.R.
        • Handlogten K.
        • Molitor R.J.
        • Dowdy S.
        • Cliby W.A.
        • Weaver A.L.
        • et al.
        Effect of tubal sterilization technique on the risk of serous epithelial ovarian and primary peritoneal carcinoma.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2014; 135: 423-427
        • McAlpine J.N.
        • Hanley G.E.
        • Woo M.M.
        • Tone A.A.
        • Rozenberg N.
        • Swenerton K.D.
        • et al.
        Opportunistic salpingectomy: uptake, risks, and complications of a regional initiative for ovarian cancer prevention.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210: 471.e1-11
        • Westberg J.
        • Scott F.
        • Creinin M.D.
        Safety outcomes of female sterilization by salpingectomy and tubal occlusion.
        Contraception. 2017; 95: 505-508
        • Shiner S.
        • Blecher Y.
        • Alpern S.
        • Many A.
        • Ashwal E.
        • Amikam U.
        • et al.
        Total bilateral salpingectomy versus partial bilateral salpingectomy for permanent sterilization during cesarean delivery.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 295: 1185-1189
        • Powell C.B.
        • Alabaster A.
        • Simmons S.
        • Garcia C.
        • Martin M.
        • McBride-Allen S.
        • et al.
        Salpingectomy for sterilization: change in practice in a large integrated health care system, 2011–2016.
        Am J Obstet Gyncecol. 2017; 130: 961-967
        • Lehn K.
        • Gu L.
        • Creinin M.D.
        • Chen M.J.
        Successful completion of total and partial salpingectomy at the time of cesarean delivery.
        Contraception. 2018; 38: 232-236
      1. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 279-281
        • Till S.R.
        • Kobernik E.K.
        • Kamdar N.S.
        • Edwards M.G.
        • As-Sanie S.
        • Campbell D.A.
        • et al.
        The use of opportunistic salpingectomy at the time of benign hysterectomy.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2018; : 53-61
        • Wolfe K.K.
        • Wilson M.D.
        • Hou M.Y.
        • Creinin M.D.
        An updated assessment of postpartum sterilization fulfillment after vaginal delivery.
        Contraception. 2017; 96: 41-46
        • Piccinino L.J.
        • Mosher W.D.
        Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982-1995.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 1998; 30 ([46]): 4-10