Use of Preferred Source of Contraception Among Users of the Pill, Patch, and Ring in the US.

Importance: Individuals who use contraceptive pills, patches, and rings must frequently interact with the health care system for continued and consistent use. As options for obtaining these methods expand, better understanding contraceptive users' preferences for source of contraception can help facilitate access. Objective: To describe use of preferred source of contraception and to understand associations between prior reproductive health care experiences and preference for traditional in-person sources vs alternative sources. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional nationally representative survey study fielded in the US in 2022 through NORC's population-based AmeriSpeak panel. Eligible panelists were assigned female sex at birth, aged 15 to 44 years, not infecund, and not personally using permanent contraception. Of the screened panelists, 3150 were eligible; 3059 completed the survey (97%). The analysis sample included 595 individuals who currently used a pill, patch, or ring contraceptive. Data were analyzed from January 25, 2023, to August 15, 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were use of any preferred source and use of most preferred source when most recently obtaining contraception. Sources included in-person care, telehealth, pharmacist-prescribed, online service, and over the counter. A binary variable captured whether respondents most preferred traditional, in-person contraceptive care vs an alternative approach. Prior reproductive health care experiences included missing a pill, patch, or ring because they couldn't obtain it on-time and receipt of person-centered contraceptive counseling at most recent contraceptive visit. Sociodemographic characteristics and responses are presented as unweighted numbers with weighted prevalences. Results: In this study, 581 of 595 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 95.9%) of the analytic sample identified as female, 256 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 64.4%) were ages 15 to 29 years, and 448 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 73.8%) had most recently obtained their contraception in-person. Only 197 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 35.6%) selected in-person care as their most preferred source. Additionally, 296 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 49.7%) had most recently obtained their method through any preferred source, and 227 unweighted respondents (weighted prevalence, 39.8%) had obtained it through their most preferred source. In adjusted regression analyses, respondents who previously reported being unable to get their method on time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.36-4.87) had higher odds of preferring an alternative source vs traditional in-person care. Those who recently received person-centered contraceptive counseling (aOR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98) had lower odds of preferring an alternative source. Conclusions and Relevance: In this national study of individuals who used the pill, patch, and ring, most preferred alternative sources to obtain their contraception, and only half had most recently used a preferred source. These findings suggest that expansion of alternative contraceptive sources can better meet the needs of contraceptive users and support reproductive autonomy.

Estimates of use of preferred contraceptive method in the United States: a population-based study.

Background: In the U.S. and globally, dominant metrics of contraceptive access focus on the use of certain contraceptive methods and do not address self-defined need for contraception; therefore, these metrics fail to attend to person-centeredness, a key component of healthcare quality. This study addresses this gap by presenting new data from the U.S. on preferred contraceptive method use, a person-centered contraceptive access indicator. Additionally, we examine the association between key aspects of person-centered healthcare access and preferred contraceptive method use. Methods: We fielded a nationally representative survey in the U.S. in English and Spanish in 2022, surveying non-sterile 15-44-year-olds assigned female sex at birth. Among current and prospective contraceptive users (unweighted n = 2119), we describe preferred method use, reasons for non-use, and differences in preferred method use by sociodemographic characteristics. We conduct logistic regression analyses examining the association between four aspects of person-centered healthcare access and preferred contraceptive method use. Findings: A quarter (25.2%) of current and prospective users reported there was another method they would like to use, with oral contraception and vasectomy most selected. Reasons for non-use of preferred contraception included side effects (28.8%), sex-related reasons (25.1%), logistics/knowledge barriers (18.6%), safety concerns (18.3%), and cost (17.6%). In adjusted logistic regression analyses, respondents who felt they had enough information to choose appropriate contraception (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 3.31; 95% CI 2.10, 5.21), were very (AOR 9.24; 95% CI 4.29, 19.91) or somewhat confident (AOR 3.78; 95% CI 1.76, 8.12) they could obtain desired contraception, had received person-centered contraceptive counseling (AOR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33, 2.23), and had not experienced discrimination in family planning settings (AOR 1.58; 95% CI 1.13, 2.20) had increased odds of preferred contraceptive method use. Interpretation: An estimated 8.1 million individuals in the U.S. are not using a preferred contraceptive method. Interventions should focus on holistic, person-centered contraceptive access, given the implications of information, self-efficacy, and discriminatory care for preferred method use. Funding: Arnold Ventures.

Comparative effectiveness of hysteroscopic and laparoscopic sterilization for women: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare real-world effectiveness of hysteroscopic to laparoscopic sterilization. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of Medicaid claims for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedures performed in California, 2008-2014. After excluding postpartum procedures, we applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data, weighted for propensity to receive either sterilization procedures, and adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical variables to examine the poststerilization pregnancy rates. SETTING: Clinics, hospitals. PATIENT(S): Women aged 18-50 years with Medicaid claims between January 1, 2008, and August 31, 2014. INTERVENTION(S): Hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Poststerilization pregnancy measured by pregnancy-related claims. RESULT(S): Among women with hysteroscopic (n = 5,906) or laparoscopic (n = 23,965) sterilization, poststerilization pregnancy claims were identified for 4.74% of women after hysteroscopic sterilization and 5.57% after laparoscopic sterilization. The pregnancy rates decreased over time after either procedure. Twelve months after the procedure, the crude incidence of pregnancy claims was higher for hysteroscopic sterilization than for laparoscopic sterilization (3.26 vs. 2.61 per 100 woman-years), but the propensity-weighted adjusted incidence rate ratio was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.26). Between 13 and 24 months after the procedure, there were fewer pregnancies for women after hysteroscopic sterilizations than for those after laparoscopic sterilizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.45-0.88]), with no statistically significant differences in later years. The cumulative pregnancy rates 5 years after sterilization were lower with hysteroscopic sterilization than with laparoscopic sterilization (6.26 vs. 7.22 per 100 woman-years; propensity-weighted, adjusted risk ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.62-0.90]). The poststerilization pregnancy rates varied by age and race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION(S): The pregnancy rates after female sterilization are higher than expected, whether performed hysteroscopically or laparoscopically. These findings are reassuring that the effectiveness of hysteroscopic sterilization was not inferior to laparoscopic sterilization. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03438682.

Patient-Centered Safety Outcomes After Hysteroscopic Compared With Laparoscopic Sterilization.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the real-world safety of hysteroscopic compared with laparoscopic surgical sterilization. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicaid claims for hysteroscopic or laparoscopic sterilization procedures performed in California, 2008-2014, among women aged 18-50 years. After excluding postpartum procedures, we applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data, weighted for propensity to receive either sterilization procedures, and adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics that may affect outcomes of interest to patients and physicians. We assessed the following outcomes: procedural complications, additional surgical procedures (eg, hysterectomy), repeat sterilization procedures, pelvic pain, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), abdominal pain, nonabdominal pain, and abnormal uterine bleeding. RESULTS: We identified 5,906 women who had undergone hysteroscopic and 23,965 who had undergone laparoscopic sterilization. After adjusting for sociodemographic and health history, women who had hysteroscopic sterilization were less likely to have claims for procedural complications (eg, transfusion, P<.001) on the day of surgical sterilization and additional surgical procedures (eg, hysterectomy, P=.002 at day 2-3 months postprocedure) than laparoscopic sterilization. Claims for a repeat attempt at sterilization were more common after hysteroscopic sterilization within 1 year (adjusted incident rate ratio 3.48, 95% CI 2.69-4.27) and within 5 years (adjusted incident rate ratio 2.32, 95% CI 1.84-2.79) than laparoscopic sterilization. Claims for pelvic pain (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92 at 2 years), abdominal pain (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93 at 7-12 months), and PID (adjusted incident rate ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.33-0.93 at 2 years) were less common after hysteroscopic than laparoscopic sterilization. Although abnormal uterine bleeding claims were more common after hysteroscopic than laparoscopic sterilization up to 12 months postprocedure (adjusted incident rate ratio 1.37, 95% CI 1.06-1.77 at 7-12 months), there were no significant differences between methods 1 year after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Compared with laparoscopic sterilization, hysteroscopic sterilization was followed by more claims for repeat sterilization procedures and abnormal uterine bleeding, but fewer procedural complications and fewer claims for pelvic or abdominal pain. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03438682.

Honoring Dr. Shalon Irving, A Champion for Health Equity.

Shalon Irving's 2017 death brought national attention to maternal mortality among Black women in the US. This essay remembers her life and legacy.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Intrauterine Contraception and Tubal Ligation.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ligation remains common in the USA, especially among low-income patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of intrauterine contraceptives (IUC) to laparoscopic tubal ligation for Medicaid clients. DESIGN: We partnered with patient and clinician stakeholders to conduct a retrospective cohort study using California Medicaid claims for patients who had an IUC placed or laparoscopic tubal ligation performed in 2008-2014, excluding procedures performed within 42 days of a birth. We applied log-linear (Poisson) event-history regression models for clustered person-period data to adjust for sociodemographic variables and pre-procedure health status when examining associations between these contraceptive procedures and claims related to contraceptive failure, complications, and pain in the first year post-procedure. KEY RESULTS: We identified 35,705 patients who had a levonorgestrel IUC placed, 23,628 patients who had a copper IUC placed, and 23,965 patients who underwent laparoscopic tubal ligation. In unadjusted analyses, rates of pregnancy within 1 year were similar following levonorgestrel IUC (2.40%) or copper IUC placement (2.99%) or tubal ligation (2.64%). In adjusted analyses, compared to tubal ligation, pregnancy was less common following placement of a levonorgestrel IUC (adj IRR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.82) and similar with placement of a copper IUC (adj IRR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82-1.05). Procedural complications such as infection (0.35% vs. 2.91%) were significantly less common with IUC placement than tubal ligation. Claims for pelvic and abdominal pain decreased in frequency with time since all procedures; 6 to 12 months post-procedure, pelvic pain claims were less common after levonorgestrel IUC (adj IRR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.73) or copper IUC placement (adj IRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.66-0.75) than tubal ligation. CONCLUSIONS: IUC appears at least as effective as laparoscopic tubal ligation at 1-year post-procedure with lower rates of infection and pelvic pain 6 to 12 months post-procedure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03438682.

Associations Between Reproductive Coercion, Partner Violence, and Mental Health Symptoms Among Young Black Women in Baltimore, Maryland.

This study examined the associations of reproductive coercion (RC) with mental health of Black adolescent and young adult women. We tested RC as a predictor of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. We also explored the interaction of exposure to RC and physical and sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) as they relate to depression and PTSD symptoms. A primarily community-based convenience sample of 188 self-identified Black women, aged 18 to 25 years, in Baltimore, Maryland, completed computer-based cross-sectional surveys. Lifetime RC (37.8%) and IPV (48.9%) were prevalent in this sample. Nearly 10% of the young women reported experiencing RC without IPV; 38% of the sample reported experiencing both types of violence. Depression (69%) and PTSD (47.1%) symptoms were more prevalent among women with RC than among women without RC. Adjusted results revealed RC and IPV were independently associated with depression (adjusted odds ratioRC = 2.86, 95% CI = [1.38, 5.94] and adjusted odds ratioIPV = 5.15, 95% CI = [2.47, 10.76]). Similarly, RC and IPV were independently associated with PTSD (adjusted odds ratioRC = 2.41, 95% CI = [1.15, 5.08] and adjusted odds ratioIPV = 3.04, 95% CI = [1.39, 6.63]). Findings suggest that RC and IPV independently contribute to mental health morbidities among this population of women. Current policies in health care practice increasingly recommend provision of screening for IPV, including RC. These practices should extend to women receiving services in community-based settings, thus strengthening the linkage to referral for further mental health treatment and victim service support. In the context of the social burdens affecting young Black women's health, a comprehensive approach that integrates mental health and reproductive/sexual health care is essential for women reporting RC experiences.

Implementing Trauma-Informed Partner Violence Assessment in Family Planning Clinics.

OBJECTIVE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and reproductive coercion (RC) are associated with poor reproductive health. Little is known about how family planning clinics implement brief IPV/RC assessment interventions in practice. We describe the uptake and impact of a brief, trauma-informed, universal IPV/RC assessment and education intervention. METHODS: Intervention implementation was evaluated via a mixed methods study among women ages 18 and up receiving care at one of two family planning clinics in greater Baltimore, MD. This mixed methods study entailed a quasi-experimental, single group pretest-posttest study with family planning clinic patients (baseline and exit survey n = 132; 3-month retention n = 68; retention rate = 52%), coupled with qualitative interviews with providers and patients (total n = 35). RESULTS: Two thirds (65%) of women reported receiving at least one element of the intervention on their exit survey immediately following the clinic-visit. Patients reported that clinic-based IPV assessment is helpful, irrespective of IPV history. Relative to those who reported neither, participants who received either intervention element reported greater perceived caring from providers, confidence in provider response to abusive relationships, and knowledge of IPV-related resources at follow-up. Providers and patients alike described the educational card as a valuable tool. Participants described trade-offs of paper versus in-person, electronic medical record-facilitated screening, and patient reluctance to disclose current situations of abuse. CONCLUSION: In real-world family planning clinic settings, a brief assessment and support intervention was successful in communicating provider caring and increasing knowledge of violence-related resources, endpoints previously deemed valuable by IPV survivors. Results emphasize the merit of universal education in IPV/RC clinical interventions over seeking IPV disclosure.

Immediate placement of intrauterine devices after first and second trimester pregnancy termination.

BACKGROUND: We reviewed our experience with intrauterine device (IUD) placement after surgical abortion up to 20 weeks' gestation. STUDY DESIGN: Women presenting for elective abortion between January 2004 and March 2009 who requested an IUD were included in this retrospective review. RESULTS: Of 308 women requesting postabortion IUD placement, 221 (72%) planned insertion at the time of abortion (immediate group) and 87 (28%) planned insertion at their postoperative visit (interval group). IUDs were placed in 96% of the immediate group and in 23% of the interval group (212/221 vs. 20/87; p<.0001). Failure to return for placement was the most common reason for noninsertion in the interval group (60/87=69%). Follow-up information was obtained for 56% of patients and was documented a median of 137 days postabortion (range 3-1594 days). There was no difference in complication rates between groups. Expulsion rates were 3% and 0% in the immediate and interval groups, respectively (6/212 vs. 0/20; p=.4). Considering only those with documented follow-up after immediate insertion (119), there was a nonsignificant trend towards increased expulsion with placement after second vs. first trimester abortion (4/54=7% vs. 2/65=2%; p=.3). When analyzing the 172 subjects with documented follow-up, those planning immediate insertion were more likely to have an IUD in situ at the last contact than those planning later insertion (84/124=68% vs. 20/48=42%; p=.002). CONCLUSION: Immediate postabortion IUD insertion is safe and effective. Given the low rate of return for interval insertion, immediate placement may be preferable.

Family planning and the burden of unintended pregnancies.

Family planning is hailed as one of the great public health achievements of the last century, and worldwide acceptance has risen to three-fifths of exposed couples. In many countries, however, uptake of modern contraception is constrained by limited access and weak service delivery, and the burden of unintended pregnancy is still large. This review focuses on family planning's efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancies and their health burden. The authors first describe an epidemiologic framework for reproductive behavior and pregnancy intendedness and use it to guide the review of 21 recent, individual-level studies of pregnancy intentions, health outcomes, and contraception. They then review population-level studies of family planning's relation to reproductive, maternal, and newborn health benefits. Family planning is documented to prevent mother-child transmission of human immunodeficiency virus, contribute to birth spacing, lower infant mortality risk, and reduce the number of abortions, especially unsafe ones. It is also shown to significantly lower maternal mortality and maternal morbidity associated with unintended pregnancy. Still, a new generation of research is needed to investigate the modest correlation between unintended pregnancy and contraceptive use rates to derive the full health benefits of a proven and cost-effective reproductive technology.

Contraceptive implants.

Implantable contraception has been extensively used worldwide. Implants are one of the most effective and reversible methods of contraception available. These devices may be particularly appropriate for certain populations of women, including women who cannot use estrogen-containing contraception. Implants are safe for use by women with many chronic medical problems. The newest implant, Implanon (Organon International, Oss, The Netherlands), is the only device currently available in the United States and was approved in 2006. It is registered for 3 years of pregnancy prevention. Contraceptive implants have failure rates similar to tubal ligation, and yet they are readily reversible with a return to fertility within days of removal. Moreover, these contraceptive devices can be safely placed in the immediate postpartum period, ensuring good contraceptive coverage for women who may be at risk for an unintended pregnancy. Irregular bleeding is a common side effect for all progestin-only contraceptive implants. Preinsertion counseling should address possible side effects, and treatment may be offered to women who experience prolonged or frequent bleeding.