5209.0: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 - 2:45 PM

Abstract #6290

Family planning providers' attitudes about dual protection and barrier method use

Susie Hoffman, DrPH1, Joanne E. Mantell, PhD1, Theresa Exner, PhD1, Zena Stein, MB, BCh1, and Kim Atkins, MA2. (1) NYS Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, HIV Center for Clinical & Behavioral Studies, 1051 Riverside Drive - Unit 15, New York, NY 10032, 212 923-7281, hoffman@pi.cpmc.columbia.edu, (2) Community Healthcare Network, 184 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010

Background: To identify family planning (FP) providers’ beliefs and attitudes that need to be considered in designing and implementing a clinic-based intervention to promote counselling for dual protection (DP)--the concurrent protection of unintended pregnancy and HIV/STIs. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 9 clinic directors and 25 providers conducting counselling in 9 FP clinics in low-income NYC neighborhoods in 1998. Interviews assessed attitudes about the appropriateness of contraceptive methods for different women and practices re: risk assessment and contraceptive counselling. Results: Directors and providers universally believed that promotion of DP among their clients was important. The majority of providers had contraceptive method preferences based on clients’ demographic and social characteristics. Half of the providers believed that all women should use 2 methods for DP, while the remainder indicated this only for women with high-risk behaviors. Although 86% of the providers reported they would recommend the male condom to all clients, 64% said they would never recommend the male condom as the primary contraceptive method. The majority (70%) had negative attitudes about the female condom, and 52% reported they would never recommend it as the primary contraceptive method. The majority of the providers were concerned that promoting male (91%) or female (73%) condom use instead of hormonal methods could actually increase the risk of pregnancy. Almost 75% of the providers believed that there should be some limitation on the prescription of emergency contraception. Conclusions: U.S. providers’ concerns about the limitations of barrier methods may inhibit their ability to promote DP to FP clients.

Learning Objectives:

  1. Articulate the concept of dual protection and describe why it is important for family planning services.
  2. Identify how family planning providers' attitudes may enhance or impede the introduction of dual protection within family planning services.

Keywords: HIV/AIDS, Reproductive Health Research

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.

The 128th Annual Meeting of APHA