Counseling to prevent unintended pregnancies: measuring its value

Contraception use and unplanned pregnancies among injection drug-using women in St Petersburg, Russia

BACKGROUND

This cross-sectional study estimated the prevalence of contraceptive methods and investigated whether abortion rates influence contraceptive behaviour among injection drug-using (IDU) women in St Petersburg, Russia.

METHODOLOGY

A self-administered questionnaire of behaviour in the last 3 months was applied to a convenient sample of IDU women.

RESULTS

Of 80 sexually active participants, 67% had had an abortion. No participant reported using hormonal contraceptives or intrauterine devices (IUDs). The only valid method of contraception used was condoms, which was reported by half of the participants. Consistent condom use was reported by 22% of participants and was no more likely among those who had an abortion. Condom use was significantly associated with having multiple or casual sex partners [prevalence ratio (PR) 1.75, 95% (confidence interval) CI 1.11-2.78, p = 0.01], having an IDU sex partner (PR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.85, p = 0.029) and with a negative attitude toward condoms (PR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33-0.84, p = 0.01). Abortions were less likely among those who had multiple or casual sex partners (PR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high prevalence of abortions among IDU women, none reported the use of hormonal contraception or IUDs. Having had an abortion was not associated with greater likelihood of using condoms. Participants mostly used condoms with casual or multiple sex partners, suggesting that condoms were used mainly to prevent HIV/sexually transmitted infection transmission and not to prevent pregnancy. Programmes to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce abortion-related health risks among this understudied vulnerable group are needed.

Abortion and psychiatric practice

The subject of abortion is fraught with politics, emotions, and misinformation. A widespread practice reaching far back in history, abortion is again in the news. Psychiatry sits at the intersection of the religious, ethical, psychological, sociological, medical, and legal facets of the abortion issue. Although the religions that forbid abortion are more prominent in the media, many religions have more liberal approaches. While the basic right to abortion has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, several limitations have been permitted, including parental notification or consent (with the possibility of judicial bypass) for minors, waiting periods, and mandatory provision of certain, sometimes biased, information. Before the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in 1973, many women were maimed or killed by illegal abortions, and psychiatrists were sometimes asked to certify that abortions were justified on psychiatric grounds. Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae. The psychiatric outcome of abortion is best when patients are able to make autonomous, supported decisions. Psychiatrists need to know the medical and psychiatric facts about abortion. Psychiatrists can then help patients prevent unwanted pregnancies, make informed decisions consonant with their own values and circumstances when they become pregnant, and find appropriate social and medical resources whatever their decisions may be.

Emergency contraception and fire extinguishers: a prevention paradox

Fires and unintended pregnancies are important causes of morbidity, mortality, and financial loss in the United States. Home fire extinguishers and emergency contraception are both effective preventive interventions. The disparity between access to fire extinguishers and emergency contraception is irrational and indirectly hurts women's health. Although fire extinguishers require the user to make a diagnosis, choose the appropriate treatment, and assume some risk of serious injury and death, these canisters of pressurized chemicals are widely available without restriction. In contrast, women face several unnecessary obstacles to overcome before using emergency contraception, which is both simpler and safer to use. Clearly, a double standard prevails in prevention strategies for women. The Food and Drug Administration should approve over-the-counter availability of emergency contraception without further study or delay.