Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:06:09.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Family planning clinics in sheffield, 1967

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

Audrey W. M. Ward
Affiliation:
Medical Care Research Unit, Department of Preventive Medicine, The University, Sheffield

Extract

A survey was made of the new patients at the family planning clinics in Sheffield during 4 months in the first half of 1967. Two hundred and forty-two visited clinics at the outset of marriage and 806 had been married at least 6 months. The FPA had 894 patients and the LA 154. The wives of non-manual workers were over-represented at the FPA clinics but not at the LA clinics. The wives of semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers were generally under-represented. There is some evidence that relative accessibility affects clinic attendance. The most commonly used methods of contraception used before the clinic visit were condom and coitus interrupts—there were variations among different occupational groups. Among those able to give a firm answer there had been more unplanned pregnancies than planned, but not amongst the non-manual groups. 96 of the perimarital and 20 of the other patients were working full-time. The perimarital patients were equally divided in their choice of clinic methods—pill or cap. Among the other patients 49 were prescribed the pill, 27 IUD and 24 the cap.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Himes, N.E. (1963) Medical History of Contraception, p. 352. Gamut Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lafitte, F. (1963) Family Planning in the Sixties. FPA, London.Google Scholar
Ward, A.W.M. (1969) General practitioners and family planning in Sheffield. J. biosoc. Sci. 1, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed