{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Relating economic conditions to vasectomy and vasectomy reversal frequencies: a multi-institutional study.
{Author}: Sharma V;Zargaroff S;Sheth KR;Le BV;Dupree JM;Sandlow JI;Polackwich AS;Hedges JC;Fuchs EF;Goldstein M;Brannigan RE;
{Journal}: J Urol
{Volume}: 191
{Issue}: 6
{Year}: Jun 2014
{Factor}: 7.6
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.12.045
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>It was theorized that the use of permanent contraceptive methods may vary with economic conditions. We evaluated the relationship between vasectomy/vasectomy reversal frequencies at several large referral centers and national economic indicators during 2 recessions spanning 2001 to 2011.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>We performed an institutional review board approved, retrospective chart review to identify the number of vasectomies/vasectomy reversals per month at several large referral centers from January 2001 to July 2011. The rates of these procedures were pooled, correlated with national economic data and analyzed in a multivariate linear regression model.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>A total of 4,599 vasectomies and 1,549 vasectomy reversals were performed at our institutions during the study period. The number of vasectomies per month positively correlated with the unemployment rate (r=0.556, p<0.001) and personal income per capita (r=0.276, p=0.002). The number of reversals per month negatively correlated with the unemployment rate (r=-0.399, p<0.001) and personal income per capita (r=-0.305, p<0.001). Neither vasectomy nor vasectomy reversal frequency significantly correlated with the inflation rate or the S&P 500®. Regression models confirmed that the unemployment rate explained more of the variance in vasectomy/vasectomy reversal frequencies than other indicators.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>We noted a correlation between the number of vasectomies/vasectomy reversals performed at our institutions and national economic indicators. The strongest association was with the unemployment rate. This points to the importance of financial pressure on family planning decisions.