Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T08:40:28.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social factors in the choice of contraceptive method: a comparsion of first clinic attenders accepting oral contraceptives with those accepting intrauterine devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Su Kingsley  and
John McEwan
Su Kingsley
Affiliation:
WHO Collaborative Clinical Research Centre and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital, London
John McEwan
Affiliation:
WHO Collaborative Clinical Research Centre and Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King's College Hospital, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

At a hospital contraceptive clinic with between 1200 and 2400 new clients each year, regular recording is made of the social and personal characteristics of the clinic users together with their contraceptive and reproductive histories. An analysis has been made of the differences found between those accepting the pill and those the intrauterine device (IUD) at their first attendance. Age and parity show marked differences and these are related to employment and ethnic origin. Previous contraceptive use showed distinct differences; IUD acceptors were more likely to have had induced abortions. These findings are discussed in relation to the prevalent use of these two methods and it is suggested that IUD fitting should be more widely available.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 153 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © 1977, 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Askham, J. (1975) Fertility and Deprivation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bone, M. (1973) Family Planning Services in England and Wales, p. 18. HM Stationary Office, London.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. (1976) How Many Children? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. & Waite, M. (1972) General practitioners and contraception in 1970–71. J. R. Coll. gen. Practnxrs, 22, Supplement No. 2, p. 4.Google ScholarPubMed
Chamberlain, A. (1976) Planning versus fatalism. J. biosoc. Sci. 8, 1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glass, D.V. (1970) Components of natural increase in England and Wales. Popul. Stud. Supplement, 05 1970, p. 21,Google Scholar
Kingsley, S. (1974) Report on Data Collection Conference. (mimeo) King’s College Hospital, London.Google Scholar
McEwan, J. (1975a) Hospital family planning: collection information. Contraception, 11, 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEwan, J. (1975b) Letter. Br. Med. J. 3, 433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, J.I. & Inman, W.H.W. (1975) Oral contraceptives and death from myocardial infarction. Br. med. J. 2, 245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, J.I., Vessey, M.P., Thorogood, M. & Doll, R. (1975) Myocardial infarction in young women with special reference to oral contraceptive practice. Br. med. J. 2, 241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newton, J., Barnes, G., Cameron, J., Goldman, P. & Elias, J. (1976) Nurse specialists in family planning. Br. med. J. (in press).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newton, J., Elias, J., McEwan, J. & Mann, G. (1974) Intrauterine contraception with the Copper 7: evaluation after two years. Br. med. J. 3, 447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peel, J. & Carr, G. (1975) Contraception and Family Design, p. 75. Churchill-Livingstone, London.Google Scholar
Vessey, M., Doll, R., Redman, C. & Wiggins, P. (1973) Family planning and health. Medical Newsletter No. 47. Family Planning Association, London.Google Scholar