 |
| Click to enlarge |
About 75% of women in the study chose the IUD or implant, and 0.27% of those women unintentionally got pregnant, compared with 4.55% of women using other methods of birth control.
“If there were a drug for cancer, heart disease or diabetes that was 20 times more effective, we would recommend it first,” Jeffrey Peipert, MD, told Science Daily. As one of the study's senior authors, Peipert said the results support a shift in how patients should be counseled.
 |
| Hormonal Implant Click to enlarge |
This ideology may be the reason that about 50% of pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and about half of those unplanned pregnancies result from failed birth control.
* * * * * *
Ok, that's all. I based this on a Science Daily article titled "IUDs, implants most effective birth control, study suggests." The anecdote at the bottom is my own spin on it, quoting my sister. I'm not sure if that's "legit," but along with the absence of condoms in the study that is the main thing this study made me think of. Also, it's more like 300 words — the last two paragraphs are extraneous, but I included them because I want to know what you think. Does that part seem like a cohesive part of the article or a random add-in? Am I "allowed" to include something not in the original article? I think quotes always make articles more interesting, but since nobody knows who my sister is, she isn't really an authority on the subject.
Finally, do the graphics seem random? Would they be more informative with captions?
Thanks for reading, let me know what you think.
Nice topic. :-)
ReplyDeleteI like that you asked specific questions after your post--helps know what feedback you might want.
As far as the graphics go, I didn't think they were random at all. They do a good job of showing the IUD as they actually look (both types--nice touch), and exactly how it fits with the female anatomy. And I think the captions are sufficient.
One thing that might be nice to have, along with the graphics, is how/why IUD's work. Many people don't know *how* different birth control methods work, but I'd think that if you didn't know, seeing the graphic of the IUD in place might make you wonder. (And I was also a little surprised that the news story you linked to didn't mention potentially unwanted side-effects of IUD use--that would be a natural follow-up if the "how it works" part was touched on.)
I'm struck by how this news story, even though it is science, also can't help but avoid issues of social values. You touch on them outright, a little, and the original, while it doesn't admit to it, does give the facts behind the controversy (because IUD use is, as you mention, controversial in the women that it targets and those it doesn't). As one writer, I'd feel inclined to outline these issues a little more--from both sides; but like you, I'm not clear if that would be good science reporting or not.
What interests me is how the purpose of this study seems to have been in the paragraph hidden in the middle of the news story you linked to, and it makes me wonder if the original article in the _New England Journal of Medicine_ focused more on this purpose or not. The paragraph I'm thinking of says:
"For this study, the investigators wanted to determine whether educating women about the effectiveness of various birth- control options and having them choose a method without considering cost would reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy."
As one reader, I feel like your summary is trying hard not to go anyplace in particular--just report the findings. But in the end you do go to the conclusion it seems the original *wants* us to make: hello, people, if you use BC methods that are more reliable, you won't have so many unplanned pregnancies.
As one who is new-to-science-writing, I'm unsure how we're supposed to handle this: the article clearly gives you info to draw a conclusion, even though it never comes right out an says it.
The conclusion the linked article leads *me* to is: even though we've only counseled older women who have already had children to get IUD's, clearly we'd have fewer unplanned pregnancy if we counseled younger women to do the same. However, you can't get into *that* conversation without going where you went: is freedom from fear of pregnancy a license to "promiscuity"? (I have my own gut reaction to that, that borders on--it's nobody's business but the patients', and, would y'all ruling forces rather women be having lots of sex without babies, or having unwanted babies and not taking care of them? One effects the person making the choice, the other effects many, many more lives--including a potentially neglected child.)
Anyway--I'm amazed at just how fast trying to simply report science news ties into social issues. Do you think this is why it'd be important to summarize an original journal article, to see if they report any differently on results?
(Sorry for the anthology here--I just found your topic really interesting. Thanks for writing about it!)
--The condom girl :-D
Oh crap. That was *really* long. Sorry! (You SO succeeded in drawing me in to the conversation! :-P)
ReplyDeleteI really liked the article, was more of a reminder to me of what my wife went through before we had children. As a science writer, I would say, stay away from the opinion based talk. Like you mention in the last section of your comments. The only reason I would say that, is if you were writing for Time magazine and you put your own spin on it at the end, both you and the magazine would be held accountable. I understand where you're coming from, but it isn't what was said in the actual research, and that is what the peice would be looked at and picked apart.
ReplyDelete