home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: talk.abortion
- Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!usenet
- From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
- Subject: Re: CONTRACEPTIVE FAILURE RATES (long)
- In-Reply-To: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu's message of Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:21:47 GMT
- Message-ID: <1992Aug30.212940.15090@menudo.uh.edu>
- Sender: usenet@menudo.uh.edu (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: uhad1.admin.uh.edu
- Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
- References: <1992Aug28.182147.3293@menudo.uh.edu>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:29:40 GMT
- X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20
- Lines: 145
-
- > I have (among others) maintained that improved education and contraceptive
- > availability could do much to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies, and
- > thus, the number of abortions. Early on in my participation in this group
- > Adreinne Regard disagreed and via use of known failure rates for perfect
- > use of contraception produced figures that indicated even perfect use would
- > do very little for the overall figures. I disagreed, but until fairly
- > recently was unable to substantiate this feeling. My case is significantly
- > improved by the following post, which indicates contraceptive failure is
- > far above that obtained through consistently correct use.
- >
- > The following data and commentary is from "Contraceptive Failure Rates Based
- > on the 1988 NSFG", by Elise Jones and Jacqueline Forrest of the Alan
- > Guttmacher Institute, from the January 1992 issue of _Family Planning Per-
- > spectives_, pages 12-18. Much of the data used in the article was derived
- > from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) conducted periodically by
- > the National Center for Health Statistics. The data was obtained via inter-
- > views with a probability sample of 8,540 US women aged 15-44 of all marital
- > statuses. The latest NSFG figures are from 1988. The Institute undertook
- > a study in 1987 of 9,480 abortion patients to determine contraceptive use
- > among those obtaining abortions. This was done largely to correct what the
- > Institute saw as possible underreporting in the 1982 NSFG of abortions, and
- > thus of contraceptive failure. If I insert any comments not found in the
- > article, I will denote them with brackets [like so].
- >
- > begin article
- > ******************************************************************************
- > [I find it important to note that the authors feel that failure rates, and
- > indeed, even contraceptive use itself may have been overreported by the
- > interviewees. They express this concern at length while discussing the methods
- > used to reach their conclusions.]
- >
- > Table 1. % of women experiencing contraceptive failure during the 1st 12 months
- > of use, uncorrected and corrected for underreporting of abortion, by method,
- > NFSG, 1988
- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- > method uncorrected, corrected, corrected,
- > unstandardized unstandardized standardized
- > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- > pill 5.1 8.3 7.3
- > condom 7.2 14.8 15.8
- > diaphragm 10.4 15.9 22.0
- > periodic
- > abstinence 20.9 25.6 31.4
- > sponge 14.5 * *
- > spermicides 13.4 25.2 30.2
- > other 13.3 27.8 26.2
- >
- > * not shown; correction based on 1987 and not representative of sponge use
- > during the whole observation period.
- >
- > "The probability of failure varies not only by method but also by char-
- > aceristics of the user, such as age and marital status."
- >
- > Table 2. % of women experiencing contraceptive failure during the first 12
- > months of use, corrected for underreporting of abortion, by marital status,
- > poverty status and age, according to method, 1988 NSFG
- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- > Marital status, pill condom diaphragm spermicide other
- > poverty status
- > and age
- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- > NEVER MARRIED
- > <200% POVERTY
- > <20 12.9 27.3 37.3 49.8 43.7
- > 20-24 15 31.1 42.1 55.4 49.1
- > 25-29 12.8 27.0 36.9 49.4 43.5
- > >29 9.6 20.8 * 39.6 *
- >
- > >200% POVERTY
- > <20 5.9 13.2 * 26.3 22.5
- > 20-24 6.9 15.2 21.4 30.0 25.8
- > 25-29 5.9 13.0 18.4 26.0 22.3
- > >29 4.4 9.8 14.0 * *
- >
- > EVER MARRIED
- > <200% POVERTY
- > <20 26.8 51.3 * * *
- > 20-24 14.0 29.3 39.8 52.8 46.6
- > 25-29 8.8 19.0 26.6 36.7 31.8
- > >29 6.2 13.8 19.5 27.5 23.6
- >
- > >200% POVERTY
- > <20 12.9 * * * *
- > 20-24 6.4 14.2 20.1 28.2 24.2
- > 25-29 4.0 8.9 12.8 18.3 15.5
- > >29 2.8 6.4 9.1 13.2 11.2
- >
- > * indicates subgroups represented in the NSFG by fewer than 5 use intervals
- >
- > [I left out the data on periodic abstinence for space. It ranged from a high
- > of 57.3 for never-married 20-24 yr olds <200% of poverty to a low of 13.9 for
- > ever-married >29 year-olds >200% of poverty]
- >
- > "The chances of failure vary widely among different subgroups of women.[...]
- > Although the overall level of failure differs markedly from method to method,
- > ...the pattern of variation by marital status, poverty status, and age is not
- > significantly different among the methods."
- >
- > Women who were previously married but currently single had a much higher rate
- > of failure than married and never-married women, for all age groups.
- >
- > Religion seemed to little over-all effect on contraceptive use, but was a
- > marked predictor among lower-income women.
- >
- > CONCLUSIONS OF THE AUTHORS
- >
- > [the authors spend a paragraph warning of possible biases due to underreport-
- > ing of abortion and other factors which might lead to the over-estimation of
- > the failure rates. I think this well-founded, but agree with them that certain
- > trends are fairly clear]
- >
- > "In spite of such qualifications, some general conclusions are clear. Contr-
- > aceptive failure rates in the United States continue to be much higher than
- > they need be, contributing substantially to high levels of unintended preg-
- > nancy and abortion. For example, if all those choosing to use oral contracep-
- > tives used the method perfectly (that is, correctly and consistently), it is
- > estimated only one per 1,000 would become pregnant within the first year of
- > use. The results here indicate that, among women using the pill during the
- > late 1980's as many as 80 per 1,000 actually became pregnant. Similarly,
- > estimated failure rates for those using condoms perfectly are 20 per 1,000,
- > yet 150 per 1,000 couples actually using condoms apparently experience an
- > unplanned pregnancy during the first 12 months of use.
- > Comparisons of results based on the 1982 and 1988 surveys indicate that
- > contraceptive failure rates are not declining, and that indeed, rates for the
- > pill and periodic abstinence appear to have risen."
- >
- > The authors go on to make some other comparisons, and make a call for better,
- > simpler methods, improved education on those existing, and more studies on
- > contributing factors [all of which I concur with whole-heartedly].
- > ***************************************************************************
- > end article
- >
- >
- > semper fi,
- >
- > Jammer Jim Miller
- > Texas A&M University '89 and '91
- > ********************************************************************************
- > * Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here. *
- > * Speak for my employers? They don't even know I exist! *
- > *"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
- > * ********************************************* *
- > * "Power finds its way to those who take a stand. Stand up, Ordinary Man." *
- > * ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph *
- > ********************************************************************************
-