Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The influence of social media on patient and public perception of vasectomy: a narrative review

International Journal of Impotence Research (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

This review explores the perception of vasectomy on social media to better understand the current online landscape of men’s reproductive health. Evolving sociocultural values and drastic changes in the legal landscape have sparked important conversations about contraception among Americans. Effective contraception options are limited for men. Vasectomy is a safe, reliable, and affordable form of permanent contraception. Men’s reproductive health is often stigmatized, and it is paramount to understand the drivers of this stigmatization, especially as interest in vasectomy appears to be rising. Cultural stigmatization is often reflected online. Social media has become ubiquitous in our culture, with both a broad reach and a strong societal influence. Other domains of reproductive health have seen substantial levels of misinformation online. While it is unclear how the male perception of vasectomy has evolved online over the past few years, the recent growing demand creates a unique avenue for urologists to engage in Men’s Health both in the clinic and online. Urologist-driven efforts online present the opportunity to address misinformation and help ensure prospective patients are better informed regarding their options for contraception.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bole R, Lundy SD, Pei E, Bajic P, Parekh N, Vij SC. Rising vasectomy volume following reversal of federal protections for abortion rights in the United States. Int J Impot Res. 2024;36:265–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellison JE, Brown-Podgorski BL, Morgan JR. Changes in permanent contraception procedures among young adults following the Dobbs decision. JAMA Health Forum. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.0424.

  3. Teal S, Edelman A. Contraception selection, effectiveness, and adverse effects: a review. JAMA. 2021;326:2507–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Amory JK. Development of novel male contraceptives. Clin Transl Sci. 2020;13:228–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Labbok MH, Queenan JT. The use of periodic abstinence for family planning. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1989;32:387–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hendrix NW, Chauhan SP, Morrison JC. Sterilization and its consequences. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1999;54:766–77.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Social Media Fact Sheet. Pew Research Center. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.

  8. Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187.

  9. Ostrowski KA, Holt SK, Haynes B, Davies BJ, Fuchs EF, Walsh TJ. Evaluation of vasectomy trends in the United States. Urology. 2018;118:76–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siemons SE, Vleugels MPH, van Balken MR, Braat DDM, Nieboer TE. Male or female sterilization - the decision making process: counselling and regret. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2022.100767.

  11. Ha A, Zhang CA, Li S, Langroudi AP, Basran S, Scott M, et al. A contemporary estimate of vasectomy failure in the United States: analysis of US claims data. J Urol. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000004405.

  12. Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, Reyes E, Pinto L, Gricar J. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception. 2009;79:5–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Monea E, Thomas A. Unintended pregnancy and taxpayer spending. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43:88–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Handelsman DJ. Male contraception. In: Feingold KR, Ahmed SF, Anawalt B, Blackman MR, Boyce A, Chrousos G, et al. editors. Endotext. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279094/.

  15. Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, Ranjit N. Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31:56–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bradley SEK, Polis CB, Bankole A, Croft T. Global contraceptive failure rates: who is most at risk? Stud Fam Plann. 2019;50:3–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Liddon N, O’Malley Olsen E, Carter M, Hatfield-Timajchy K. Withdrawal as pregnancy prevention and associated risk factors among US high school students: findings from the 2011 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. Contraception. 2016;93:126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ranjit N, Bankole A, Darroch JE, Singh S. Contraceptive failure in the first two years of use: differences across socioeconomic subgroups. Fam Plann Perspect. 2001;33:19–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shih SL, Kebodeaux CA, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Peipert JF. Baseline correlates of inconsistent and incorrect condom use among sexually active women in the contraceptive CHOICE Project. Sex Transm Dis. 2011;38:1012–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Randolph ME, Pinkerton SD, Bogart LM, Cecil H, Abramson PR. Sexual pleasure and condom use. Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36:844–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Marfatia YS, Pandya I, Mehta K. Condoms: Past, present, and future. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2015;36:133–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Kost K, Singh S, Vaughan B, Trussell J, Bankole A. Estimates of contraceptive failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception. 2008;77:10–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sundaram A, Vaughan B, Kost K, Bankole A, Finer L, Singh S, et al. Contraceptive failure in the united states: estimates from the 2006-2010 national survey of family growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017;49:7–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallo MF, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Nonlatex vs. latex male condoms for contraception: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 2003;68:319–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Deneux-Tharaux C, Kahn E, Nazerali H, Sokal DC. Pregnancy rates after vasectomy: a survey of US urologists. Contraception. 2004;69:401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwingl PJ, Guess HA. Safety and effectiveness of vasectomy. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:923–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jacobstein R, Radloff S, Khan F, Mimno K, Pal M, Snell J, et al. Down but not out: vasectomy is faring poorly almost everywhere-we can do better to make it a true method option. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2023. https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00369.

  28. Eeckhaut MCW, Rendall MS, Zvavitch P. Women’s use of long-acting reversible contraception for birth timing and birth stopping. Demography. 2021;58:1327–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Zhang X, Eisenberg ML. Vasectomy utilization in men aged 18-45 declined between 2002 and 2017: Results from the United States National Survey for Family Growth data. Andrology. 2022;10:137–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. White K, Martínez Órdenes M, Turok DK, Gipson JD, Borrero S. Vasectomy knowledge and interest among U.S. men who do not intend to have more children. Am J Mens Health. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883221098574.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Campbell AD, Turok DK, White K. Fertility intentions and perspectives on contraceptive involvement among low-income men aged 25 to 55. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2019;51:125–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Agarwal A, Mulgund A, Hamada A, Chyatte MR. A unique view on male infertility around the globe. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Zaila KE, Osadchiy V, Shahinyan RH, Mills JN, Eleswarapu SV. Social media sensationalism in the male infertility space: a mixed methodology analysis. World J Mens Health. 2020;38:591–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang F, Li J, Dong L, Tan K, Huang X, Zhang P, et al. Review of vasectomy complications and safety concerns. World J Mens Health. 2021;39:406–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. White K, Potter JE. Reconsidering racial/ethnic differences in sterilization in the United States. Contraception. 2014;89:550–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Borrero S, Schwarz EB, Reeves MF, Bost JE, Creinin MD, Ibrahim SA. Does vasectomy explain the difference in tubal sterilization rates between black and white women? Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1642–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Averbach S, Ha D, Meadows A, Brubaker L, Gyamfi-Bannerman C. Failure to progress: structural racism in women’s healthcare. EClinicalMedicine. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101861.

  38. Eisenberg ML, Henderson JT, Amory JK, Smith JF, Walsh TJ. Racial differences in vasectomy utilization in the United States: data from the national survey of family growth. Urology. 2009;74:1020–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. McCray N, Thompson L, Branch F, Porter N, Peterson J, Perry MJ. Talking about public health with african american men: perceptions of environmental health and infertility. Am J Mens Health. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988320901375.

  40. Mock KO, Moyer A, Lobel M. Explaining sex discrepancies in sterilization rates in the United States: An evidence-informed commentary. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2023;55:116–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Breland JY, Quintiliani LM, Schneider KL, May CN, Pagoto S. Social media as a tool to increase the impact of public health research. Am J Public Health. 2017;107:1890–1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Chen J, Wang Y. Social media use for health purposes: systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.2196/17917.

  43. Braun LA, Zomorodbakhsch B, Keinki C, Huebner J. Information needs, communication and usage of social media by cancer patients and their relatives. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019;145:1865–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Foster P, Luebke M, Razzak AN, Anderson DJ, Hasoon J, Viswanath O, et al. Stigmatization as a Barrier to Urologic Care: A Review. Health Psychol Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.84273.

  45. Merz AA, Gutiérrez-Sacristán A, Bartz D, Williams NE, Ojo A, Schaefer KM, et al. Population attitudes toward contraceptive methods over time on a social media platform. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.11.042.

  46. Huang M, Gutiérrez-Sacristán A, Janiak E, Young K, Starosta A, Blanton K, et al. Contraceptive content shared on social media: an analysis of Twitter. Contracept Reprod Med. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-024-00262-2.

  47. Stevens R, Gilliard-Matthews S, Dunaev J, Todhunter-Reid A, Brawner B, Stewart J. Social media use and sexual risk reduction behavior among minority youth: seeking safe sex information. Nurs Res. 2017;66:368–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Ferreira Caceres MM, Sosa JP, Lawrence JA, Sestacovschi C, Tidd-Johnson A, Rasool MHU, et al. The impact of misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health. 2022;9:262–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Pagoto SL, Palmer L, Horwitz-Willis N. The next infodemic: abortion misinformation. J Med Internet Res. 2023. https://doi.org/10.2196/42582.

  50. Foran T. Contraception and the media: lessons past, present and future. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24:80–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Conti JA, Cahill E. Abortion in the media. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;29:427–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Pfender EJ, Tsiandoulas K, Morain SR, Fowler LR. Hormonal contraceptive side effects and nonhormonal alternatives on TikTok: a content analysis. Health Promot Pract. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399231221163.

  53. Nguyen V, Li MK, Leach MC, Patel DP, Hsieh TC. Comparison of childless and partnerless vasectomy rates before and after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Am J Mens Health. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/15579883241260511.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. United States Reports. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al. Vol. 597, 2022.

  55. Brindis CD, Laitner MH, Clayton EW, Scrimshaw SC, Grosz BJ, Simpson LA, et al. Societal implications of the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision. Lancet. 2024;403:2751–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sellke N, Tay K, Sun HH, Tatem A, Loeb A, Thirumavalavan N. The unprecedented increase in Google searches for “vasectomy” after the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:1186–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pierson BC, Banaag A, Janvrin ML, Koehlmoos TP. Vasectomy incidence in the military health system after the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Int J Impot Res. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00905-7.

  58. Hanna E, Gough B. Searching for help online: an analysis of peer-to-peer posts on a male-only infertility forum. J Health Psychol. 2018;23:917–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Loeb S, Carrick T, Frey C, Titus T. Increasing Social Media Use in Urology: 2017 American Urological Association Survey. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:605–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dubin JM, Aguiar JA, Lin JS, Greenberg DR, Keeter MK, Fantus RJ, et al. The broad reach and inaccuracy of men’s health information on social media: analysis of TikTok and Instagram. Int J Impot Res. 2024;36:256–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Tzelves L, Talyshinskii A, Nedbal C, Mykoniatis I, Beisland C, Roth I, et al. Patient perspectives on vasectomy: findings from a TikTok® content analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00931-5.

  62. Aguiar JA, Greenberg DR, Brannigan RE, Halpern JA, Dubin JM. Beyond the prescription: trends and challenges in erectile dysfunction medications among young adult men. Int J Impot Res. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00902-w.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Albany Medical Center, Albany, NY, USA

    Akash U. Patel & Joshua Schammel

  2. Department of Urology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Evan J. Panken

  3. Department of Urology, Memorial Healthcare System, Aventura, FL, USA

    Justin M. Dubin

Authors
  1. Akash U. Patel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joshua Schammel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evan J. Panken
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Justin M. Dubin
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have made significant contributions to the writing of the manuscript, reporting of our findings, and have approved the manuscript for submission. AP contributed to conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, and drafting the manuscript. JS contributed to conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, and critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content. EP contributed to conception and design, data analysis and interpretation, and critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content. JD is the senior author and contributed to conception, design, and critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Akash U. Patel.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, A.U., Schammel, J., Panken, E.J. et al. The influence of social media on patient and public perception of vasectomy: a narrative review. Int J Impot Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01114-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01114-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links