Prohibiting consent: What are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care?

Jamie W. Krashin, Alison Edelman, Mark D. Nichols, Allison J. Allen, Aaron Caughey, Maria Rodriguez

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume211
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Tubal Sterilization
Contraception
Costs and Cost Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Maternal Age
Spontaneous Abortion
Informed Consent
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Pregnancy
Population
Haemophilus influenzae type b-polysaccharide vaccine-diphtheria toxoid conjugate

Keywords

  • abortion
  • consent
  • cost-effectiveness
  • female sterilization
  • permanent contraception

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Prohibiting consent : What are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care? / Krashin, Jamie W.; Edelman, Alison; Nichols, Mark D.; Allen, Allison J.; Caughey, Aaron; Rodriguez, Maria.

In: American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol. 211, No. 1, 2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5be2290ca4f541e4b23a6a7f2f940905,
title = "Prohibiting consent: What are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care?",
abstract = "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",
keywords = "abortion, consent, cost-effectiveness, female sterilization, permanent contraception",
author = "Krashin, {Jamie W.} and Alison Edelman and Nichols, {Mark D.} and Allen, {Allison J.} and Aaron Caughey and Maria Rodriguez",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.039",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "211",
journal = "American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology",
issn = "0002-9378",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prohibiting consent

T2 - What are the costs of denying permanent contraception concurrent with abortion care?

AU - Krashin, Jamie W.

AU - Edelman, Alison

AU - Nichols, Mark D.

AU - Allen, Allison J.

AU - Caughey, Aaron

AU - Rodriguez, Maria

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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

AB - 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

KW - abortion

KW - consent

KW - cost-effectiveness

KW - female sterilization

KW - permanent contraception

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903316759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903316759&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.039

DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.04.039

M3 - Article

C2 - 24799310

AN - SCOPUS:84903316759

VL - 211

JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

SN - 0002-9378

IS - 1

ER -