Knowledge, professional attitudes, and training among health professionals regarding male contraceptive methods

Tcherdukian, Jessica; Mieusset, R.; Netter, A; Lechevallier, É.; Bretelle, Florence; Perrin, Jeanne

doi:10.1080/13625187.2022.2093851

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent systematic review of barriers to male participation in general reproductive health care highlighted that barriers to inclusive and integrated quality reproductive health services are the primary limitation to male engagement in reproductive health, and pointed to health care workers as a major contributor to the lack of access to reproductive health services ( Roudsari et al , 2023 ). Another recent study similarly highlighted that many health professionals involved in contraception have unsatisfactory knowledge of male contraceptive methods and are not reliably offering male options during couple contraceptive counseling sessions ( Tcherdukian et al , 2022 ). Measuring the impact of provider bias poses major methodological challenges, but several studies have shown that provider bias has a significant impact on provider contraceptive provision practices and may lead to reduced contraceptive access ( Solo & Festin, 2019 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers

Hoover,

Shattuck,

Andes

2023

Gates Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Male sterilization, or vasectomy, is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy with less than a 2% risk of complications. Despite the high efficacy, low risk, low cost, and gender equity benefits of vasectomy, just 2% of women reported that they and their partners relied on vasectomy as their contraceptive method globally in 2019. Health care providers can be both a facilitator and a barrier in men’s health generally, and may be in vasectomy provision as well. This study sought to describe the decision-making rationales of experienced vasectomy providers when evaluating patient candidacy in complex cases. Methods Fifteen vasectomy providers belonging to the global Vasectomy Network google group from seven countries participated in online interviews using a semi-structured in-depth interview guide. Providers were asked about their vasectomy training, their reasons for vasectomy provision, challenging cases they have faced, and approaches used to manage challenging cases. Vignettes were used to further elicit decision-making rationale. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA20. Results Provider decision-making was predicated on ensuring patients were well-informed, able to consent, and certain about their choice to have a vasectomy. Once those foundational conditions were met, providers filtered patient characteristics through their training, laws and policies, sociocultural norms, experience, and peer influence to produce a cost-benefit breakdown. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, providers determined whether to weigh autonomy or non-maleficence more heavily when determining vasectomy patient candidacy. Conclusions Despite clinical best practices that promote prioritizing patient autonomy over non-maleficence, some providers continued to weigh non-maleficence over autonomy in vasectomy patient candidacy evaluations. Non-maleficence was particularly prioritized in cases providers deemed to be at higher risk of regret. The findings of this study suggest vasectomy provider training should emphasize evidence-based best practices in shared decision-making and patient-centered care to facilitate vasectomy provision that honors patient autonomy and rights.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers

Hoover,

Shattuck,

Andes

2023

Gates Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers

Hoover,

Shattuck,

Andes

2024

Gates Open Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Male sterilization, or vasectomy, is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy with less than a 2% risk of complications. Despite the high efficacy, low risk, low cost, and gender equity benefits of vasectomy, just 2% of women reported that they and their partners relied on vasectomy as their contraceptive method globally in 2019. Health care providers can be both a facilitator and a barrier in men’s health generally, and may be in vasectomy provision as well. This study sought to describe the decision-making rationales of experienced vasectomy providers when evaluating patient candidacy in complex cases. Methods Fifteen vasectomy providers belonging to the global Vasectomy Network Google Group from seven countries participated in online interviews using a semi-structured in-depth interview guide. Providers were asked about their vasectomy training, their reasons for vasectomy provision, challenging cases they have faced, and approaches used to manage challenging cases. Vignettes were used to further elicit decision-making rationale. Thematic analysis was conducted using MAXQDA20. Results Provider decision-making was predicated on ensuring patients were well-informed, able to consent, and certain about their choice to have a vasectomy. Once those foundational conditions were met, providers filtered patient characteristics through their training, laws and policies, sociocultural norms, experience, and peer influence to produce a cost-benefit breakdown. Based on the cost-benefit analysis, providers determined whether to weigh autonomy or non-maleficence more heavily when determining vasectomy patient candidacy. Conclusions Despite clinical best practices that promote prioritizing patient autonomy over non-maleficence, some providers continued to weigh non-maleficence over autonomy in vasectomy patient candidacy evaluations. Non-maleficence was particularly prioritized in cases providers deemed to be at higher risk of regret. The findings of this study suggest vasectomy provider training should emphasize evidence-based best practices in shared decision-making and patient-centered care to facilitate vasectomy provision that honors patient autonomy and rights.

show abstract

Knowledge, professional attitudes, and training among health professionals regarding male contraceptive methods

Cited by 2 publications

References 24 publications

Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers

Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers

Vasectomy provider decision-making balancing autonomy and non-maleficence: qualitative interviews with providers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About