Does state-level context matter for individuals' knowledge about abortion, legality and health? Challenging the 'red states v. blue states' hypothesis.

Recently, the hypothesis that state-level political context influences individuals' cultural values--the 'red states v. blue states' hypothesis--has been invoked to explain the hyper-polarisation of politics in the USA. To test this hypothesis, we examined individuals' knowledge about abortion in relation to the political context of their current state of residence. Drawing from an internet-survey of 586 reproductive-age individuals in the USA, we assessed two types of abortion knowledge: health-related and legality. We found that state-level conservatism does not modify the existing relationships between individual predictors and each of the two types of abortion knowledge. Hence, our findings do not support the 'red states' versus 'blue states' hypothesis. Additionally, we find that knowledge about abortion's health effects in the USA is low: 7% of our sample thought abortion before 12 weeks gestation was illegal.

Has the fall of Roe changed contraceptive access and use? New research from four US states offers critical insights.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade in the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has had vast impacts on abortion access across the United States, but less is known about the wider impacts on people's contraceptive access. We draw on cross-sectional survey data representative of reproductive-aged women in Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin at two time points-one prior to and one following the Dobbs decision. We examined changes between these two time points in key sexual and reproductive health metrics and, at the post-Dobbs time point, differences in these metrics across age, sexual and gender minority status, nativity, and income status. Between these two time points, we found statistically significant evidence that sexual activity declined, barriers to accessing contraception increased, reports of receiving high-quality contraceptive care decreased, and condom use increased. As continued fallouts of the Dobbs decision on access to abortion occur, this research makes clear that access to broader contraceptive care is worsening. Policies that promote meaningful access to all forms of sexual and reproductive health care must be advanced to support all individuals' right to reproductive autonomy while mitigating inequity and inequality.

Unfulfilled and method-specific contraceptive preferences among reproductive-aged contraceptive users in Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with unfulfilled contraceptive preferences, document reasons for these unfulfilled preferences, and examine how these unfulfilled preferences vary across specific method users. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: We draw on secondary baseline data from 4660 reproductive-aged contraceptive users in the Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey, and Wisconsin Surveys of Women (SoWs), state-representative surveys fielded between October 2018 and August 2020 across the four states. STUDY DESIGN: This is an observational cross-sectional study, which examined associations between individuals' reproductive health-related experiences and contraceptive preferences, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics. Our primary outcome of interest is having an unfulfilled contraceptive preference, and a key independent variable is experience of high-quality contraceptive care. We also examine specific contraceptive method preferences according to current method used, as well as reasons for not using a preferred method. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Survey respondents who indicated use of any contraceptive method within the last 3 months prior to the survey were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall, 23% reported preferring to use a method other than their current method, ranging from 17% in Iowa to 26% in New Jersey. Young age (18-24), using methods not requiring provider involvement, and not receiving quality contraceptive care were key attributes associated with unfulfilled contraceptive preferences. Those using emergency contraception and fertility awareness-based methods had some of the highest levels of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences, while pills, condoms, partner vasectomy, and IUDs were identified as the most preferred methods. Reasons for not using preferred contraceptive methods fell largely into one of two buckets: system-level or interpersonal/individual reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight that avenues for decreasing the gap between contraceptive methods used and those preferred to be used may lie with healthcare providers and funding streams that support the delivery of contraceptive care.

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.

Community attitudes towards childbearing and abortion among HIV-positive women in Nigeria and Zambia.

Although stigma towards HIV-positive women for both continuing and terminating a pregnancy has been documented, to date few studies have examined relative stigma towards one outcome versus the other. This study seeks to describe community attitudes towards each of two possible elective outcomes of an HIV-positive woman's pregnancy - induced abortion or birth - to determine which garners more stigma and document characteristics of community members associated with stigmatising attitudes towards each outcome. Data come from community-based interviews with reproductive-aged men and women, 2401 in Zambia and 2452 in Nigeria. Bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed that respondents from both countries overwhelmingly favoured continued childbearing for HIV-positive pregnant women, but support for induced abortion was slightly higher in scenarios in which anti-retroviral therapy (ART) was unavailable. Zambian respondents held more stigmatising attitudes towards abortion for HIV-positive women than did Nigerian respondents. Women held more stigmatising attitudes towards abortion for HIV-positive women than men, particularly in Zambia. From a sexual and reproductive health and rights perspective, efforts to assist HIV-positive women in preventing unintended pregnancy and to support them in their pregnancy decisions when they do become pregnant should be encouraged in order to combat the social stigma documented in this paper.

Where Do Reproductive-Aged Women Want to Get Contraception?

Background: People's preferences regarding how they want to obtain contraception should be considered when building and refining high-quality contraceptive care programs, especially in light of recent shifts to incorporate more telehealth options into contraceptive care due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Our study is a cross-sectional analysis of population-representative surveys conducted between November 2019 and August 2020 among women aged 18-44 years in Arizona (N = 885), New Jersey (N = 952), and Wisconsin (N = 967). We use multivariable logistic regression to identify characteristics associated with each of five contraception source preference groups (in-person via health care provider, offsite with a provider via telemedicine, offsite without a provider via telehealth, at a pharmacy, or via innovative strategies), and we examine associations between contraceptive care experiences and perceptions and each preference group. Results: Across states, most respondents (73%) expressed preferences for obtaining contraception via more than one source. One quarter indicated a narrow preference for obtaining contraception in-person from a provider, 19% expressed interest in doing so offsite with a provider via telemedicine, 64% for doing so offsite without a provider via telehealth, 71% reported interest in pharmacy-based contraception, and 25% indicated interest in getting contraception through innovative strategies. Those who had experienced nonperson-centered contraceptive counseling reported higher levels of interest in telehealth and innovative sources, and those who expressed mistrust in the contraceptive care system had higher levels of preferring to obtain contraception offsite, via telemedicine, telehealth, and other innovative avenues. Conclusions: Policies that ensure access to a diversity of contraceptive sources, which acknowledge and address people's past experiences of contraceptive care, have the greatest likelihood of closing the gap between people's contraceptive access preferences and realities.

Primary and reproductive healthcare access and use among reproductive aged women and female family planning patients in 3 states.

Public funding plays a key role in reducing cost barriers to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care in the United States. In this analysis, we examine sociodemographic and healthcare seeking profiles of individuals in three states where public funding for health services has recently changed: Arizona, Iowa, and Wisconsin. In addition, we examine associations between individuals' health insurance status and whether they experienced delays or had trouble in obtaining their preferred contraception. This descriptive study draws on data collected between 2018 to 2021 in two distinct cross-sectional surveys in each state, one among a representative sample of female residents aged 18-44 and the other among a representative sample of female patients ages eighteen and older seeking family planning services at healthcare sites that receive public funding to deliver this care. The majority of reproductive-aged women and female family planning patients across states reported having a personal healthcare provider, had received at least one SRH service in the preceding 12 months, and were using a method of birth control. Between 49-81% across groups reported receiving recent person-centered contraceptive care. At least one-fifth of each group reported wanting healthcare in the past year but not getting it, and between 10-19% reported a delay or trouble getting birth control in the past 12 months. Common reasons for these outcomes involved cost and insurance-related issues, as well as logistical ones. Among all populations except Wisconsin family planning clinic patients, those with no health insurance had greater odds of being delayed or having trouble getting desired birth control in the past 12 months than those with health insurance. These data serve as a baseline to monitor access and use of SRH services in Arizona, Wisconsin, Iowa in the wake of drastic family planning funding shifts that changed the availability and capacity of the family planning service infrastructure across the country. Continuing to monitor these SRH metrics is critical to understand the potential effect of current political shifts.

"Adoption is just not for me": How abortion patients in Michigan and New Mexico factor adoption into their pregnancy outcome decisions.

Objectives: In public discourses in the United States, adoption is often suggested as a less objectionable, equal substitute for abortion, despite this pregnancy outcome occurring much less frequently than the outcomes of abortion and parenting. This qualitative study explores whether and how abortion patients weighed adoption as part of their pregnancy decisions and, for those who did, identifies factors that contributed to their ultimate decision against adoption. Study design: We interviewed 29 abortion patients from 6 facilities in Michigan and New Mexico in 2015. We conducted a thematic analysis using both deductive and inductive approaches to describe participants' perspectives, preferences, and experiences regarding the consideration of adoption for their pregnancy. Results: Participants' reasons why adoption was not an appropriate option for their pregnancy were grounded in their ideas of the roles and responsibilities of parenting and fell into three themes. First, participants described continuing the pregnancy and giving birth as inseparable from the decision to parent. Second, choosing adoption would represent an irresponsible abnegation of parental duty. Third, adoption could put their child's safety and well-being at risk. Conclusions: Adoption was not an equally acceptable substitute for abortion among abortion patients. For them, adoption was a decision that represented taking on, and then abdicating, the role of parent. This made adoption a particularly unsuitable choice for their pregnancy. Implications: Rhetoric suggesting that adoption is an equal alternative to abortion does not reflect the experiences, preferences, or values of how abortion patients assess what options are appropriate for their pregnancy.

The status of person-centered contraceptive care in the United States: Results from a nationally representative sample.

CONTEXT: The Person-Centered Contraceptive Care measure (PCCC) evaluates patient experience of contraceptive counseling, a construct not represented within United States surveillance metrics of contraceptive care. We explore use of PCCC in a national probability sample and examine predictors of person-centered contraceptive care. METHODS: Among 2228 women from the 2017-2019 National Survey of Family Growth who reported receiving contraceptive care in the last year, we conducted univariate and multivariable linear regression to identify associations between individual characteristics and PCCC scores. RESULTS: PCCC scores were high ( x ¯ : 17.84, CI: 17.59-18.08 on a 4-20 scale), yet varied across characteristics. In adjusted analyses, Hispanic identity with Spanish language primacy and non-Hispanic other or multiple racial identities were significantly associated with lower average PCCC scores compared to those of non-Hispanic white identity (B = -1.232 [-1.970, -0.493]; B = -0.792 [-1.411, -0.173]). Gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity was associated with lower average PCCC scores compared to heterosexual (B = -0.673 [-1.243, -0.103]). PCCC scores had a positive association with incomes of 150%-299% and ≥300% of the federal poverty level compared to those of income <150% (150%-299%: B = 0.669 [0.198, 1.141]; ≥300%: B = 0.892 [0.412, 1.372]). Cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower PCCC scores (B = -0.542 [-0.971, -0.113]). CONCLUSIONS: The PCCC can capture differential experiences of contraceptive care to monitor patient experience and to motivate and track care quality over time. Differences in reported quality of care have implications for informing national priorities for contraceptive care improvements.

Understanding contraceptive failure: an analysis of qualitative narratives.

Most American women wanting to avoid pregnancy use contraception, yet contraceptive failures are common. Guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM), we conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with women who described experiencing a contraceptive failure (n=69) to examine why and how this outcome occurs. We found three primary drivers of contraceptive failures (health literacy and beliefs, partners and relationships, and structural barriers), and we identified pathways through which these drivers led to contraceptive failures that resulted in pregnancy. These findings have implications for how individuals can be better supported to select their preferred contraception during clinical contraceptive discussions.

Associations between unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost and low-income patients' access to and experiences of contraceptive care in the United States, 2015-2019.

Objective: To identify prevalence of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost among low-income United States female contraceptive method users and nonusers, and associations between access to, and experience with, contraceptive care and this outcome. Methods: We drew on data from the 2015-2019 National Surveys of Family Growth to conduct simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses on unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost among nationally representative samples of low-income women ages 15 to 49 who were current contraceptive users (N = 3178) and nonusers (N = 1073). Results: Overall, 23% of female contraceptive users reported they would use a different method, and 39% of nonusers reported they would start using a method, if cost were not an issue. Controlling for user characteristics, low-income contraceptive users who received recent publicly supported contraceptive care reported significantly higher levels of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost than those without any access to SRH care (aOR = 1.6, CI 1.0-2.5), while having private (aOR = 0.6, CI 0.4-0.9) or public (aOR = 0.7, CI 0.5-1.0) health insurance was associated with significantly lower levels of this outcome. Nonusers of contraception who had recently received publicly supported contraceptive care also reported marginally higher levels of this outcome (aOR = 2.2, CI 1.0-5.1). Contraceptive users who received recent person-centered contraceptive counseling had marginally lower odds of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost (aOR = 0.6, CI 0.4-1.0). Conclusions: Cost is a barrier to using preferred contraception for both contraceptive users and nonusers; health insurance coverage and person-centered contraceptive counseling may help contraceptive users to overcome cost barriers and realize their contraceptive preferences. Implications: Factors related to contraceptive access at the systems level-specifically the subsidization and experience of contraceptive care-impact whether cost serves as a barrier to individuals' contraceptive preferences. Delivery of patient-centered care and shoring up health insurance coverage for all can help to mitigate cost barriers and enable individuals to realize their contraceptive preferences.

A Prospective Cohort Study of Changes in Access to Contraceptive Care and Use Two Years after Iowa Medicaid Coverage Restrictions at Abortion-Providing Facilities Went into Effect.

Inequities in access to contraception based on ability to pay can interfere with individuals' reproductive autonomy. This study examines the impact of a 2017 state-level policy in Iowa restricting Medicaid coverage at abortion-providing health care centers on patients' access to contraceptive care and subsequent contraceptive use. We draw on a unique panel dataset of individuals who originally sought care at a publicly supported family planning site in Iowa in 2018-2019 and then participated in subsequent follow-up surveys every 6 months for 2 years to examine an effect of access to care on contraceptive use. Among our final analytic sample of 368 individuals, our findings indicate that receipt of recent contraceptive care decreased over the study period; this coincided with patients shifting away from getting contraceptive care at sites potentially impacted by the 2017 Iowa Medicaid policy restriction while those getting this care at non-impacted sites remained relatively steady over the study period. At the same time, nonuse of contraception increased while use of a contraceptive method that carries cost, use of a provider-involved method, and satisfaction with one's method decreased. We find that, after controlling for patient characteristics, those who shifted toward receiving contraceptive care experienced increases in these three contraceptive outcomes. We interpret this as preliminary descriptive evidence demonstrating an impact of disruptions in access to contraceptive care on contraceptive outcomes. Supportive payment and funding strategies for contraception, rather than policies that impede or restrict access, are needed to enable people to realize full reproductive autonomy.

The impact of policy changes from the perspective of providers of family planning care in the US: results from a qualitative study.

In recent years, there have been several state and federal policies that have disrupted access to publicly supported family planning care in the United States, including the 2019 rule that altered the federal Title X family planning program. In late 2020, we conducted in-depth interviews with health care providers from 55 facilities providing family planning care in Arizona, Iowa, and Wisconsin with the aim of learning how sites were affected by policy changes. We identified perceived effects on clinic finances, patient confidentiality, contraceptive counselling and service provision, and options counselling resulting from state and federal policy changes. Some clinics lost funding and had to pass some of the cost of services on to patients, raising new confidentiality concerns and creating new burdens on staff to carry out financial counselling with patients. Other sites had to grapple with restrictions on the pregnancy options counselling that they could provide, concentrate counselling on fertility awareness-based methods, and increase efforts to include parents/guardians in the care of adolescent patients. State and federal policies impact how publicly supported family planning care is provided, and compromise efforts to provide patient-centred care.

Financial Instability and Delays in Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Care Due to COVID-19.

Objective: To identify prevalence of, and patient and clinic characteristics associated with, delays in access to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) care due to the COVID-19 pandemic across three states with varying COVID-19 context and state government response. Methods: We weighted data collected between May 2020 and May 2021 from monthly and biannual follow-up surveys of patients seeking family planning care at a publicly supported health center in Arizona (N = 538), Iowa (N = 341), and Wisconsin (N = 568), who reported on experiences 6-18 months before the survey. We conducted multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify characteristics associated with delays in accessing SRH care due to COVID-19, with specific attention to associations between patients' financial instability and experiencing delays. Results: Between May 2020 and May 2021, over half of respondents in Arizona (57%), 38% in Iowa, and 30% in Wisconsin indicated that they were either unable to access or delayed accessing SRH care or a contraceptive method due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In Arizona and Wisconsin, in multivariable models, respondents who had experienced financial instability due to being out of work, having fallen behind on key life payments, or because of a job reduction or loss due to COVID-19 had increased odds of experiencing COVID-19-related SRH care delays (Arizona adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.6, p = 0.01 and Wisconsin aOR = 6.0, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Access to contraception was curtailed during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for those who experienced employment and financial instability. Individuals' and clinics' ability to mitigate these effects were likely dependent on state context and response to the pandemic, among other factors.

Access to Preferred Contraceptive Strategies in Iowa: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study of Effects of Shifts in Policy and Healthcare Contexts.

People's ability to use their desired contraception is necessary for reproductive autonomy. We conducted longitudinal in-depth interviews over two years with 34 women in Iowa who sought contraceptive and related care at publicly supported sites in 2018/2019 to understand how state-level shifts in funding for these services affected their access to contraception. Twenty-seven of 34 respondents faced cost, access, and quality barriers relevant to policy and health care contexts, and we assessed the overall level of impact of these on access to preferred contraception over the study period. Cost barriers such as high fees for visits and methods as well as restrictive or inadequate insurance coverage, and access barriers such as long appointment wait times were most common; barriers compounded one another. Policies that support funding for contraceptive care, and that limit the need to interact with health systems for routine care, can decrease vulnerability to barriers and increase reproductive autonomy.

Changes in use of emergency contraceptive pills in the United States from 2008 to 2015.

OBJECTIVES: To describe changes in use and receipt of emergency contraceptive (EC) pills among women in the United States during a period of key EC policy changes, from 2008 to 2015. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the 2006 to 2010 and 2013 to 2017 National Surveys of Family Growth, we present changes in the percent of women who ever used EC between 2008 and 2015 by select sociodemographic and sexual and reproductive health characteristics, and we examine multivariable relationships of these characteristics with EC ever use in 2015. We also examine changes in repeat EC use, receipt of EC counseling, reasons for EC use and source of EC between the time periods. RESULTS: Among sexually experienced women ages 15 to 44, EC ever use increased from 11% in 2008 to 23% in 2015 overall and among nearly all groups of women. In 2015, age 20 to 29, non-Hispanic other or Hispanic race, at least a high school education, working part-time, income at least 100% of the federal poverty level, ever having been married, and having received EC counseling in the prior year all represent characteristics associated with higher odds of having ever used EC. In 2015, a smaller share of women last obtained EC with a prescription or at a health facility than in 2008. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in EC use occurred as access to EC was broadened through regulatory changes that moved some forms of EC from behind-the-counter to fully over-the-counter between 2008 and 2015. IMPLICATIONS: Over-the-counter provision of many forms of EC pills may have increased access and introduced more flexibility in how EC is obtained, but these changes may have come with tradeoffs, both in the form of cost barriers and decreased opportunities for clinicians to discuss EC with their patients. Despite improved access to contraception more broadly through the Affordable Care Act, EC remains a necessary component of the overall contraceptive method mix, and clinicians can play a key role in discussing EC as one option among many during contraceptive counseling sessions.

Use of concurrent multiple methods of contraception in the United States, 2008 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE: To identify prevalence of, characteristics associated with, and combinations of, use of more than one method of contraception at last intercourse among US women between 2008 and 2015. METHODS: We conducted bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses using data on concurrent contraceptive use from 2 nationally representative samples of women ages 15 to 44 who had used some form of contraception at last intercourse in the past 3 months in the 2006-2010 (n = 6601) and 2013-2017 (n = 5562) cycles of the National Survey of Family Growth. RESULTS: Use of more than one method of contraception at last sex increased from 14% in 2008 to 18% in 2015 (p<0.001), with increases in use documented across many population groups. Among multiple method users, the majority combined condoms with other methods (58%), while the rest combined other methods (42%). When compared to single method users, dual method users employing condoms are a more homogeneous group of individuals than are dual method users not employing condoms. As age increases, dual use with condoms decreases, but there is no similar linear relationship between age and dual method use without condoms. CONCLUSIONS: A sizable proportion of US women use more than one contraceptive method during sex; current estimates of contraceptive use focused exclusively on single method use may underestimate the extent to which women are protected from unintended pregnancy. The needs and goals of individuals combining contraceptive methods in different ways may change over the life course as pregnancy desires and life circumstances change. IMPLICATIONS: A sizable proportion of US women use more than one contraceptive method during sex; clinicians and health educators in nonclinical settings should assess and acknowledge these more complicated contraceptive strategies in order to help individuals achieve autonomy in method choice and meet their goals around pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection prevention.

Use of contraception among reproductive-aged women in the United States, 2014 and 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To examine current levels, correlates of, and changes in contraceptive use among reproductive-age women in the United States between 2014 and 2016. DESIGN: We conducted simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify associations between user characteristics and contraceptive use, with specific attention to methods requiring a visit to a health care provider. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENTS: All self-identified female respondents to the surveys. Secondary analysis of two rounds of the National Survey of Family Growth, an in-home, nationally representative survey of people ages 15-44 years (2013-2015) and 15-49 years (2015-2017). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Current use of a contraceptive method, including use of individual methods and grouped method use in 2016, and change in use from 2014. RESULTS: Contraceptive use remained steady between 2014 and 2016 among sexually active females not seeking pregnancy (88%). Among users, use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods increased from 14% to 18%, as use of short-acting reversible contraceptive (SARC) methods fell from 32% to 28%. Implant use among 15- to 19-year-olds rose from 6% to 16% and represents one of the largest increases observed. Access to sexual and reproductive health care was strongly associated with use of all LARC and SARC methods except for the implant (adjusted odds ratios ranged from 3.21 to 13.53). CONCLUSIONS: Contraceptive users are shifting primarily among the most and moderately effective method groups, and not from contraceptive nonuse to use. Reductions in access to sexual and reproductive health care could have implications for individuals' ability to use their preferred contraceptive methods.

Health insurance coverage and contraceptive use at the state level: findings from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between health insurance coverage, income level and contraceptive use - overall and most/moderately effective method use - among women ages 18-44 at risk of pregnancy, within and across 41 United States jurisdictions in 2017. STUDY DESIGN: Using data from the 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we calculated the proportions of women using any contraceptive method and using a most or moderately effective method for each state/territory and across all jurisdictions, categorized by health insurance coverage and income groups. For both contraceptive use outcomes, we ran simple and multivariable logistic regression models to test for significant differences in outcomes between insured and uninsured individuals. RESULTS: Across jurisdictions, compared to uninsured women, those who had health care coverage had higher levels of contraceptive use (65% versus 59%; p < .001) and most/moderately effective contraceptive use (43% compared to 35%; p < .001); low-income women with coverage also had higher levels of contraceptive use (64% versus 61%; p < .05) and most or moderately effective contraceptive use (42% versus 36%; p < .01) than their uninsured counterparts. Controlling for individual-level demographic characteristics, health insurance coverage was associated with increased odds of most or moderately effective contraceptive use across jurisdictions (adjusted odds ratio = 1.33, p < .01). In 11 states, insured women had significantly higher odds of at least one contraceptive use metric than their uninsured counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in contraceptive use across the states likely reflects broader demographic, social and structural differences across state and local populations. States' political will and support around contraceptive access likely play a role in individuals' ability to obtain and use contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Our key finding that insurance coverage is significantly associated with use of most/moderately effective contraceptive methods across the states but not any contraceptive use underscores the importance of health insurance in aiding access to methods that are more costly and often require a visit to a health care provider.

Challenges and strategies for contraceptive care in independent abortion clinics in the United States, 2017.

OBJECTIVE: Many patients may wish to receive contraceptive counseling and services during an abortion visit, but a 2009 study documented challenges faced by abortion clinics, especially independent ones, in providing contraceptive care. Since then, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has made contraception more accessible by expanding coverage to millions of individuals and by eliminating out of pocket costs. This paper aims to update this previous work and describe recent challenges in providing contraceptive care in independent abortion settings following the ACA, as well as the strategies used to address these challenges. METHODS: We conducted two focus groups and 19 semi-structured interviews with clinic administrators and directors at independent abortion clinics. RESULTS: Challenges to providing contraceptive care in independent abortion clinics included navigating new guidelines under the Affordable Care Act for establishing coverage agreements with health insurance plans and receiving timely and sufficient reimbursement for services provided. Study respondents described strategies related to adjusting clinic flow and protocols to address patient needs regarding receiving contraception during abortion care. CONCLUSION: Staff working in independent abortion clinics in the United States experience a tension between trying to provide holistic, patient-centered care - including contraceptive care - and navigating restrictive political and healthcare contexts for the delivery of abortion care.