Prohibiting consent: what are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care?
Objective Oregon and federal laws prohibit giving informed consent for permanent contraception when presenting for an abortion. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the number of unintended pregnancies associated with this barrier to obtaining concurrent tubal occlusion and abortion,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2014-07, Vol.211 (1), p.76.e1-76.e10 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective Oregon and federal laws prohibit giving informed consent for permanent contraception when presenting for an abortion. The primary objective of this study was to estimate the number of unintended pregnancies associated with this barrier to obtaining concurrent tubal occlusion and abortion, compared with the current policy, which limits women to obtaining interval tubal occlusion after abortion. The secondary objectives were to compare the financial costs, quality-adjusted life years, and the cost-effectiveness of these policies. Study Design We designed a decision-analytic model examining a theoretical population of women who requested tubal occlusion at time of abortion. Model inputs came from the literature. We examined the primary and secondary outcomes stratified by maternal age (>30 and |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.039 |