Reproductive decisions in family: abortion, contraception, IVF
Research Article
How to Cite
Rusanova N.E., Erofeeva L.V. Reproductive decisions in family: abortion, contraception, IVF. Population. 2024. Vol. 27. No. S1. P. 120-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2024-S1-120-131 (in Russ.).
Abstract
Reproductive decisions in modern families are based on reproductive goals, on the one hand, and the possibilities of their implementation, on the other. Reproductive solutions, the approach to which has evolved along with the possibilities of producing safe abortion and effective contraception, have made it possible even to make male and female sterilization reversible, and assisted reproductive technologies have become used when it is necessary to restore fertility, artificially limited to protect against unwanted pregnancy. Birth control as a demographic, social, and medical problem of society has become more dependent on regulating the number of births in a family. The purpose of the article is to identify trends in making individual decisions regarding birth of children, taking into account the new possibilities of artificial termination of pregnancy, protection against unwanted pregnancy, and fertility restoration using assisted reproductive technologies. The information base consists of thematic data from official state and medical statistics, information and analytical materials, results of sociological surveys from different years, publications by Russian and foreign scientists in the field of demography and medicine, materials from specialized websites. Changes in the priorities of modern contraceptive methods are identified as the availability of programs based on in vitro fertilization in Russia and other countries increases (growth of male and female sterilization with cryopreservation of sexual material). The trend of changing attitudes towards «home abortions» is shown, which intensified after the expansion of telemedicine as a necessary measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. The gender barriers of contraception in connection with limited methods for men and the medical and social prospects for solving this problem in different countries are highlighted.
Keywords:
reproductive solutions, abortion, contraception, sterilization, assisted reproductive technologies, telemedicine
References
1. Heinemann K., Saad F., Wiesemes M., White S., Heinemann L. Attitudes toward male fertility control: results of a multinational survey on four continents. Human Reproduction. 2005. Vol. 20. No. 2. P. 549–556.
2. Martin C. W, Anderson R. A, Cheng L, et al. Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel preparations. Human Reproduction. 2000. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 637–645.
3. Griffen Т, et al. How little is enough? The evidence for post vasectomy testing. The Journal of Urology. 2005. Vol. 174. No. 29. P. 29–36. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000161595.82642.fc
4. Sharma V., et al. Vasectomy demographics and postvasectomy desire for future children: results from a contemporary national survey. Fertility and Sterility. 2013. Vol. 99. No. 7. P. 1880–1885. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.032
5. Hsieh M. H, et al. Markov modeling of vasectomy reversal and ART: How do obstructive interval and female partner age influence cost-effectiveness? Fertility and Sterility. 2007. Vol. 88. No. 4. P. 840– 846. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.199
6. Meng M. V, Greene K. L, Turek P. J. Surgery or assisted reproduction? A decision analysis of treatment costs in male infertility. The Journal of Urology. 2005. Vol. 174. No. 5. P. 1926–1931; discussion 1931. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000176736.74328.1a
7. Gerrard E. R Jr, Sandlow J. I, Oster R. A, Burns J. R, Box L. C, Kolettis P. N. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertility and Sterility. 2007. Vol. 87. No. 6. P. 1340–1344. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.038
8. Wang C., Blithe D., Page S., Serfaty D., Sitruk Ware R. Progress in male contraception: A brief summary of the Third International Congress on Male Contraception, May 2022. Аndrology. 2022 Vol. 10, No. 8. P. 1460–1462. DOI: 10.1111/andr.13261
9. Sheremetyeva E. V, Andreeva E. N. Individual’noye konsul’tirovaniye molodykh zhenshchin po voprosam kontratseptsii v real’noy klinicheskoy praktike [Individualized contraceptive counseling for young women in clinical practice]. Problemy reproduktsii [Russian Journal of Human Reproduction]. 2022. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 89–96. DOI: 10.17116/repro20222804189 (in Russ.)
10. Marshall C., Guendelman S., Mauldon J., Nuru-Jeter A. Young women’s contraceptive decision making: Do preferences for contraceptive attributes align with method choice? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2016. Vol. 48. No. 3. P. 119–127. DOI: 10.1363/48e10116
11. Armashevskaya O. V, Sokolovskaya T. A, Senenko A. Sh. Sovremennyye prioritety kontratseptivnogo povedeniya rossiyskikh zhenshchin trudosposobnogo vozrasta (po dannym vyborochnogo issledovaniya) [Modern priorities of contraceptive behavior of Russian women of working age (according to a sample study)]. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya. [Obstetrics and Gynaecology]. 2021. No. 1. P. 164–169. DOI: 10.18565/aig.2021.1 (in Russ.)
12. Barnett C., Dinger J., Minh T. D., Heinemann K. Unintended pregnancy rates differ according to combined oral contraceptive — results from the INAS-SCORE study. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care. 2019. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 247–250. DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2019.1629412
13. Dinger J., Do Minh T., Heinemann K. Impact of estrogen type on cardiovascular safety of combined oral contraceptives. Contraception. 2016. Vol. 94. No. 4. P. 328–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.010
14. Wang C., Swerdloff R. S. Hormonal approaches to male contraception. Current Opinion of Urology. 2010. Vol. 20. No. 6. P. 520–524. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833f1b4a
15. Nieschlag E. The struggle for male hormonal contraception. Best Practice and Research. Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2011. Vol. 25. No. 2. P. 369–375. DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2010.08.008
16. Zhang L., Shah I. H., Liu Y., et al. The acceptability of an injectable, once-a-month male contraceptive in China. Contraception. 2006. Vol. 73. No. 5. P. 548–553. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2005.10.012
17. Martin C. W., Anderson R. A., Cheng L., et al. Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel preparations. Human Reproduction. 2000. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 637–645. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.3.637
2. Martin C. W, Anderson R. A, Cheng L, et al. Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel preparations. Human Reproduction. 2000. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 637–645.
3. Griffen Т, et al. How little is enough? The evidence for post vasectomy testing. The Journal of Urology. 2005. Vol. 174. No. 29. P. 29–36. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000161595.82642.fc
4. Sharma V., et al. Vasectomy demographics and postvasectomy desire for future children: results from a contemporary national survey. Fertility and Sterility. 2013. Vol. 99. No. 7. P. 1880–1885. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.032
5. Hsieh M. H, et al. Markov modeling of vasectomy reversal and ART: How do obstructive interval and female partner age influence cost-effectiveness? Fertility and Sterility. 2007. Vol. 88. No. 4. P. 840– 846. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.199
6. Meng M. V, Greene K. L, Turek P. J. Surgery or assisted reproduction? A decision analysis of treatment costs in male infertility. The Journal of Urology. 2005. Vol. 174. No. 5. P. 1926–1931; discussion 1931. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000176736.74328.1a
7. Gerrard E. R Jr, Sandlow J. I, Oster R. A, Burns J. R, Box L. C, Kolettis P. N. Effect of female partner age on pregnancy rates after vasectomy reversal. Fertility and Sterility. 2007. Vol. 87. No. 6. P. 1340–1344. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.038
8. Wang C., Blithe D., Page S., Serfaty D., Sitruk Ware R. Progress in male contraception: A brief summary of the Third International Congress on Male Contraception, May 2022. Аndrology. 2022 Vol. 10, No. 8. P. 1460–1462. DOI: 10.1111/andr.13261
9. Sheremetyeva E. V, Andreeva E. N. Individual’noye konsul’tirovaniye molodykh zhenshchin po voprosam kontratseptsii v real’noy klinicheskoy praktike [Individualized contraceptive counseling for young women in clinical practice]. Problemy reproduktsii [Russian Journal of Human Reproduction]. 2022. Vol. 28. No. 4. P. 89–96. DOI: 10.17116/repro20222804189 (in Russ.)
10. Marshall C., Guendelman S., Mauldon J., Nuru-Jeter A. Young women’s contraceptive decision making: Do preferences for contraceptive attributes align with method choice? Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2016. Vol. 48. No. 3. P. 119–127. DOI: 10.1363/48e10116
11. Armashevskaya O. V, Sokolovskaya T. A, Senenko A. Sh. Sovremennyye prioritety kontratseptivnogo povedeniya rossiyskikh zhenshchin trudosposobnogo vozrasta (po dannym vyborochnogo issledovaniya) [Modern priorities of contraceptive behavior of Russian women of working age (according to a sample study)]. Akusherstvo i ginekologiya. [Obstetrics and Gynaecology]. 2021. No. 1. P. 164–169. DOI: 10.18565/aig.2021.1 (in Russ.)
12. Barnett C., Dinger J., Minh T. D., Heinemann K. Unintended pregnancy rates differ according to combined oral contraceptive — results from the INAS-SCORE study. The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care. 2019. Vol. 24. No. 4. P. 247–250. DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2019.1629412
13. Dinger J., Do Minh T., Heinemann K. Impact of estrogen type on cardiovascular safety of combined oral contraceptives. Contraception. 2016. Vol. 94. No. 4. P. 328–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.010
14. Wang C., Swerdloff R. S. Hormonal approaches to male contraception. Current Opinion of Urology. 2010. Vol. 20. No. 6. P. 520–524. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32833f1b4a
15. Nieschlag E. The struggle for male hormonal contraception. Best Practice and Research. Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2011. Vol. 25. No. 2. P. 369–375. DOI: 10.1016/j.beem.2010.08.008
16. Zhang L., Shah I. H., Liu Y., et al. The acceptability of an injectable, once-a-month male contraceptive in China. Contraception. 2006. Vol. 73. No. 5. P. 548–553. DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2005.10.012
17. Martin C. W., Anderson R. A., Cheng L., et al. Potential impact of hormonal male contraception: cross-cultural implications for development of novel preparations. Human Reproduction. 2000. Vol. 15. No. 3. P. 637–645. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.3.637
Article
Received: 26.02.2024
Accepted: 27.05.2024
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Rusanova, N. E., & Erofeeva, L. V. (2024). Reproductive decisions in family: abortion, contraception, IVF. Population, 27(S1), 120-131. https://doi.org/10.24412/1561-7785-2024-S1-120-131
Section
YOUTH’S ATTITUDE TO FAMILY AND CHILDREN
