ArticlePerspectives on sexual and reproductive health2020
Changing Educational Differentials in Female Sterilization.
Article in Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sterilization, Infecundity, and Reproductive Autonomy in Rural, Suburban, and Urban America: Results From a National Survey.Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health · 2025Article
- Changes in contraceptive method mix following the Colorado Family Planning Initiative.Contraception · 2024Article
- Health care and contraceptive decision-making autonomy and use of female sterilisation among married women in Malawi.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Legal medicine aspects of female sterilization: our experience.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The interplay of race/ethnicity and education in fertility patterns.Population studies · 2022Article
- Barriers for multiparous women to using long-term contraceptive methods in Southeast Asia: case study in Philippines and Indonesia.BMC public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextFemale surgical sterilization is widely used in the United States. Educational differentials in sterilization are large, but poorly understood. Improved understanding of these differences is important to ensure that all women have access to the full range of contraceptive methods.
methodsData from the National Survey of Family Growth (1973-2015) from 8,100 women aged 40-44 were used to describe trends in sterilization and other contraceptive methods by educational attainment. Demographic standardization was employed to examine how compositional changes in marital status and age at first birth contribute to aggregate changes in sterilization prevalence.
resultsIn 1982, women with a high school diploma and those with at least a bachelor's degree reported similar levels of sterilization use (38% and 32%, respectively), but by 2011-2015, prevalence had declined to 19% among college-educated women and had increased to 44% among those with a diploma. The trend among college graduates was largely attributable to delayed fertility; all other things being equal, if their age at first birth had not increased, the prevalence of sterilization would have declined by approximately 3% instead of 14% between 1982 and 2002. Increased use of sterilization among women with a high school diploma was only weakly related to changes in birth timing and marital status.
conclusionsAmong women with a high school diploma, elements other than childbearing and marital status-such as contraceptive preferences and access-appeared to influence their contraceptive behavior. Sterilization differentials between high school and college graduates may reflect or exacerbate other socioeconomic disparities that affect women's health and well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.