Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:28:10.198Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social characteristics of diaphragm users in a family planning clinic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

John McEwan
John McEwan
Affiliation:
Helen Brook Department of Family Planning, King's College Hospital, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The use of the diaphragm and other vaginal caps has declined in the last decade with the rise of oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices. This is particularly clearly shown in the group of women attending family planning clinics. These changes have been accompanied by a shift in predominance from male methods to those initiated and managed by women.

Various characteristics of diaphragm acceptors at the King's group of hospital clinics have been studied from January 1972 to May 1976 and compared with those of women accepting other methods such as the pill and intrauterine device. There are marked differences in age at first attendance, and at various stages of family building; there are also differences in marital status and whether working outside the home or not. In the group of housewives accepting the diaphragm, there is an increased proportion whose partners are in non-manual occupations.

These differences are discussed in relation to the acceptability of vaginal barriers, the duration of their use and their effectiveness in the long term. If immediate acceptability could be improved by a new design, they might play a more useful part as a women's method of fertility control.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 159 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Bone, M. (1973) Family Planning Services in England and Wales. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Bone, M. (1975) Measures of Contraceptive Effectiveness and their Uses. HM Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. (1970) Parents and Family Planning Services. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Cartwright, A. (1976) How Many Children? Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
FPA (1966–1975) Annual Reports. FPA, Margaret Pyke House, London.Google Scholar
Kingsley, S. & McEwan, J. (1977) Social factors in the choice of contraceptive method: a comparison of first clinic attenders accepting oral contraceptives with those accepting intrauterine devices. J. biosoc. Sci. 9, 153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Langford, C.M. (1977) Birth Control Practice and Marital Fertility in Great Britain. Population Investigation Committee, London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
McEwan, J. (1975) Hospital family planning: collecting information. Contraception, 11, 651.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Royal College of General Practitioners (1974) Oral Contraception and Health. Pitman Medical, London.Google Scholar
Vessey, M., Doll, R., Peto, R., Johnson, B. & Wiggins, P. (1976) A long-term follow-up study of women using different methods of contraception—an interim report. J. biosoc. Sci. 8, 373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vessey, M., Doll, R., Peto, R., Redman, C. & Wiggins, P. (1973) Medical Newsletter No. 47. FPA, Margaret Pyke House, London.Google Scholar
Vessey, M. & Wiggins, P. (1974) Use-effectiveness of the diaphragm in a selected family planning clinic population in the United Kingdom. Contraception, 9, 15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar