IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/1976668761-767_7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Efficacy information in contraceptive counseling: those little white lies

Author

Listed:
  • Trussell, T.J.
  • Faden, R.
  • Hatcher, R.A.

Abstract

Various procedures for estimating the effectiveness of a method of contraception have been devised. These measures, in turn, have been used in populations which differ widely in their propensity to use contraceptives properly. Therefore, a wide array of failure rates is available in the family planning literature. Unfortunately, because of differences in measurement and in choice of population, a random selection of these reported failure rates will not produce a consistent ordinal or cardinal ranking of methods by their effectiveness. Moreover, such a wide variety of reported rates permits the family planning practitioner to choose selectively in order to maximize the attractiveness of his favorite method(s). By surveying family planning personnel in two major cities, we found that they do indeed appear to place the methods they actively dispense in an extremely favorable position. Specifically, they are biased against the traditional contraceptives, foam and the condom. In this paper, we discuss the theoretical underpinnings of the measurement of effectiveness, report the apparent bias in the levels of contraceptive effectiveness reported to the patient, and finally, recommend a procedure for eliminating the jumble of rates in the literature and the consequent confusion among family planning personnel.

Suggested Citation

  • Trussell, T.J. & Faden, R. & Hatcher, R.A., 1976. "Efficacy information in contraceptive counseling: those little white lies," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 66(8), pages 761-767.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1976:66:8:761-767_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1976:66:8:761-767_7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.