Norplant selection and satisfaction among low-income women

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 88, Issue 8, 1998, Pages 1175-1181

  Clarke, Leslie L ^a   Schmitt, Karla ^b   Bono, Christine A ^a   Steele, JoAnn ^c   Miller, Michael K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b Bureau of STD Prevention and Control   (United States)

^c Department of Health   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEVONORGESTREL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; DRUG CHOICE; FEMALE; HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT SATISFACTION;

EID: 0031855698     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.88.8.1175     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Petitti DB. Issues in evaluating Norplant. In: Samuels SE, Smith MD, eds. Dimensions of New Contraceptives: Norplant and Poor Women. Menlo Park, Calif: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 1992:65-82.
2. Sivin I. Norplant clinical trials. In: Samuels SE, Smith MD, eds. Dimensions of New Contraceptives: Norplant and Poor Women. Menlo Park, Calif: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 1992:1-19.
3. Shoupe D, Mishell DR. Norplant subdermal implant system for long-term contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989;160(5 Pt 2):1286-1292.
4. Sivin I. International experience with Norplant and Norplant-2 contraceptives. Stud Fam Plann. 1988;19:81-94.
5. Forrest JD, Kaeser L. Questions of balance: issues emerging from the introduction of the hormonal implant. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993;25:127-132.
6. Scott J. Norplant and women of color. In: Samuels SE, Smith MD, eds. Dimensions of New Contraceptives: Norplant and Poor Women. Menlo Park, Calif: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 1992:39-52.
7. Feringa B, Iden S, Rosenfield A. Norplant: potential for coercion. In: Samuels SE, Smith MD, eds. Dimensions of New Contraceptives: Norplant and Poor Women. Menlo Park, Calif: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 1992:53-64.
8. Steinbock B. Coercion and long-term contraceptives. Hastings Center Rep. 1995;25(1):S19-S22.
9. On the needless hounding for a safe contraceptive. The Economist. September 2, 1995:75.
10. Davidson AR, Kalmuss D. Norplant coercion - an overstated threat. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:550-551.
11. FDA says Norplant safe: oks education program. Health and Science. August 19, 1995:A8.
12. Darney PD, Atkinson E, Tannet S, MacPherson S, Hellerstein S, Alvarado A. Acceptance and perceptions of Norplant among users in San Francisco, USA. Stud Fam Plann. 1990;21:152-160.
13. Frank ML, Poindexter AN, Johnson ML, Bateman L. Characteristics and attitudes of early contraceptive implant acceptors in Texas. Fam Plann Perspect. 1992;24:208-213.
14. Cullins VA, Blumenthal PH, Remsburg RE, Huggins GR. Preliminary experiences with Norplant in an inner city population. Contraception. 1993;47:193-203.
15. Frank ML, Poindexter AN, Cornin LM, Cox CA, Bateman L. One-year experience with subdermal contraceptive implants in the United States. Contraception. 1993;48:229-243.
16. Eilers GM, Swanson TK. Women's satisfaction with Norplant as compared with oral contaceptives. J Fam Pract. 1994;38:596-600.
17. van Amerongen D. Removal rates of subdermal levonorgestrel implants. J Reprod Med. 1994; 39:873-876.
18. Crosby UD, Schwarz BE, Gluck KL, Heartwell DF. A preliminary report of Norplant implant insertions in a large urban family planning program. Contraception. 1993;48:359-366.
19. Musham C, Darr EG, Strossner MD. A qualitative study of the perceptions of dissatisfied Norplant users. J Fam Pract. 1995;40:465-470.
20. Zimmerman M, Haffey J, Crane E, et al. Assessing the acceptability of Norplant implants in four countries: findings from focus group research. Stud Fam Plann. 1990;21:92-103.
21. Opara JU, Ernst FA, Gaskin H, Smith L, Nevels HV. Factors associated with elective Norplant removals in black and white women. J Natl Med Assoc. 1997;89:237-240.
22. Heckman J. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica. 1979;47:152-161.
23. Dubin JA, Rivers D. Selection bias in linear regression, logit and probit models. In: Fox J, Long JS, eds. Modern Methods of Data Analysis. Newberry Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1990.
24. Maddala GS, Rao AS. Tests for serial correlation in regression models with lagged dependent variables and serially correlated errors. Econometrica. 1973;41:761-774.
25. Green WH. Econometric Analysis. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co; 1990.
26. Maddala GS. Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
27. Cullins VE, Remsburg RE, Blumenthal PD, Huggins GR. Comparison of adolescent and adult experiences with Norplant levonorgestrel contraceptive implants. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:1026-1032.
28. Polaneczky M, Slap G, Forke C, Rappaport A, Sondheimer S. The use of levonorgestrel implants (Norplant) for contraception in adolescent mothers. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1201-1206.
29. Weisman CS, Plitcha SB, Tirado DE, Dana KH. Comparison of contraceptive implant adopters and pill users in a family planning clinic in Baltimore. Fam Plann Perspect. 1993;25:224-226.
30. Humphries HO, Bauman KE. Condom use by Norplant users at risk for sexually transmitted diseases. Sex Transm Dis. 1994;21:217-219.
31. Berenson AB, Wiemann CM. Use of levonorgestrel implants versus oral contraceptives in adolescence: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(4 Pt 1):1128-1137.
32. Pariani S, Heer DM, Van Arsdol MD Jr. Does contraceptive choice make a difference to contraceptive use? Evidence from East Java. Stud Fam Plann. 1991;22:384-390.
33. King J. Helping patients choose an appropriate method of birth control. Am J Matern Child Nurs. 1992;17:91-95.
34. Trussell J, Leveque JA, Koenig JD, et al. The economic value of contraception: a comparison of 15 methods. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:494-503.
35. Westfall JM, Main DS. The contraceptive implant and the injectable: a comparison of costs. Fam Plann Perspect. 1995;27:34-36.