Contraceptive uptake among gender-expansive individuals in the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: We examined differences in contraceptive uptake and discontinuation between gender-expansive individuals and cis-women in the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative. STUDY DESIGN: We used self-reported survey data to assess associations between gender identity, contraceptive uptake, and discontinuation. RESULTS: Of participants (n = 4289), 178/4289 (4%) identified as gender-expansive with 157/178 (88%) reporting recent sexual activity with men. Selection of IUD or Implant was most common, with 109/178 (61%) of gender-expansive individuals choosing these options. We observed similar methods selected (p = 0.2) and discontinuation rates at three years between participants (OR: 0.93, p = 0.8). CONCLUSION: Gender-expansive individuals had similar method selection and discontinuation rates as cis-women. IMPLICATIONS: Our finding of no difference in the uptake of contraception between cis-women and gender-expansive individuals should empower providers to openly discuss contraception with patients regardless of gender identity.

Factors associated with a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response with intrauterine device placement: A retrospective survey of HER Salt Lake participants.

OBJECTIVES: In an established cohort of HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative participants with a prior intrauterine device (IUD) placement, we sought to (1) define the proportion of participants who reported a negative Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) response, (2) explore factors associated with an unacceptable PASS response, and (3) identify pain management preferences for IUD placement. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective survey was sent to 1440 HER Salt Lake IUD users. A PASS question queried IUD placement pain experience acceptability. We explored associations between an unacceptable PASS response and sociodemographic, reproductive and other individual characteristics using t-tests, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of those surveyed, 620 responded (43%), and 41.6% reported an unacceptable PASS response. Those with an unacceptable PASS response reported a significantly higher experienced pain level (79.2 mm vs 51.8 mm; p < 0.01) than those with an acceptable response, were more likely to have an anxiety diagnosis (47.7% vs 37.1%; p < 0.01), and have a trauma history (33.7% vs 25.1%; p = 0.02). Most patients were not offered pain control options, but 29.4% used ibuprofen and 25.3% had a support person. Regardless of PASS response, if offered, 59.0% desired numbing medication, 56.8% ibuprofen, 51% heating pad, 33.2% support person, and 31.8% anti-anxiety medication, among others. In our multivariable logistic regression model, higher pain was associated with unacceptable PASS response (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.08; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The common finding of unacceptable pain experiences with IUD placement may cause negative perceptions of an otherwise desirable method. Incorporation of the PASS response into IUD pain management studies could expand our pain experience understanding. IMPLICATIONS: IUD placement resulted in unacceptable pain experiences for 41.6% of respondents. Screening for anxiety and trauma history could identify at-risk patients to individualize pain management strategies. Incorporation of the PASS into future IUD pain management studies could result in a more comprehensive, patient-centered measure of patient experiences.

Frequency of same-day contraceptive initiation, recent unprotected intercourse, and pregnancy risk: a prospective cohort study of multiple contraceptive methods.

BACKGROUND: Same-day start removes barriers to contraceptive initiation and may reduce the risk of unintended pregnancy. It may be appropriate for all contraceptive methods, but we lack data comparing methods. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the frequency of same-day start with 6 contraceptive methods among new contraceptive users and describe the efficacy of same-day start in terms of first-cycle pregnancy risk overall and by each method. STUDY DESIGN: Using prospective data from the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative, we identified and assessed outcomes for participants initiating a new method of contraception beyond the first 7 days of their menstrual cycle (same-day start). Enrolled participants at 4 family planning clinics in Salt Lake County, Utah between September 2015 and March 2017 received their method of choice regardless of their cycle day or recent unprotected intercourse. All participants self-reported last menstrual period data and unprotected intercourse events in the previous 2 weeks. We excluded participants who received care immediately after or within 2 weeks of abortion care. Clinical electronic health records provided information on contraceptive method initiation and use of oral emergency contraception. Participants reported pregnancy outcomes in 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up surveys with clinic verification to identify any pregnancy resulting from same-day initiation. The primary outcomes report the frequency of same-day start use and first-cycle pregnancy risk among same-day start users of all contraceptive methods. The secondary outcomes include frequency of and pregnancy risk in the first cycle of use among same-day start contraception users by method. We also report the frequency of unprotected intercourse within 5 days and 6 to 14 days of contraception initiation, frequency of concomitant receipt of oral emergency contraception with initiation of ongoing contraception, and pregnancy risk with these exposures. We analyzed pregnancy risk for each contraceptive method initiated on the same day and assessed the simultaneous use of oral emergency contraception. RESULTS: Of the 3568 individuals enrolled, we identified most as same-day start users (n=2575/3568; 72.2%), with 1 in 8 of those reporting unprotected intercourse in the previous 5 days (n=322/2575; 12.5%) and 1 in 10 reporting unprotected intercourse 6 to 14 days before contraceptive method initiation (n=254/2575; 9.9%). We identified 11 pregnancies among same-day start users (0.4%; 95% confidence interval, 0.2-0.7), as opposed to 1 (0.1%; 95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.6) among those who initiated contraception within 7 days from the last menstrual period. Users of oral hormonal contraception and vaginal hormonal methods reported the highest first-cycle pregnancy rates (1.0-1.2). Among same-day start users, 174 (6.8%) received oral emergency contraception at enrollment in conjunction with another method. Among the same-day start users who received emergency contraception at initiation, 4 (2.3%) pregnancies were reported. CONCLUSION: Same-day start is common and associated with a low pregnancy risk. Using the "any method, any-time" approach better meets contraceptive clients' needs and maintains a low risk of pregnancy.

Pharmacodynamic evaluation of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant initiated midcycle with and without ulipristal acetate: An exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the incidence of ovulation suppression within five days of etonogestrel 68 mg implant insertion in the presence of a dominant follicle with and without same-day ulipristal acetate. STUDY DESIGN: This single site non-masked, exploratory randomized trial recruited people age 18-35 years with regular menstrual cycles, no pregnancy risk, and confirmed ovulatory function. We initiated transvaginal ultrasound examinations on menstrual day 7-9 and randomized participants 1:1 to etonogestrel implant alone or with concomitant ulipristal acetate 30 mg oral when a dominant follicle reached ≥14 mm in diameter. We completed daily sonography and serum hormone levels for up to seven days or transitioned to labs alone if sonographic follicular rupture occurred. We defined ovulation as follicular rupture followed by progesterone >3 ng/mL. We calculated point estimates, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for ovulation for each group. Ovulation suppression of ≥44% in either group (the follicular rupture suppression rate with oral levonorgestrel emergency contraception), would prompt future method testing. RESULTS: From October 2020 to October 2022, we enrolled 40 people and 39 completed primary outcome assessments: 20 with etonogestrel implant alone (mean follicular size at randomization: 15.2 mm ± 0.9 mm) and 19 with etonogestrel implant + ulipristal acetate (mean follicular size at randomization: 15.4 mm ± 1.2 mm, p = 0.6). Ovulation suppression occurred in 13 (65%) of etonogestrel implant-alone participants (Risk ratio 0.6 (95% CI: 0.3, 1.1), p = 0.08) and seven (37%) of implant + ulipristal acetate participants. CONCLUSIONS: Ovulation suppression of the etonogestrel implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future research while the implant + ulipristal acetate does not. IMPLICATIONS: Data are lacking on midcycle ovulation suppression for the etonogestrel implant with and without oral ulipristal acetate. In this exploratory study, ovulation suppression occurred in 65% of implant participants and 37% of implant + ulipristal acetate participants. Ovulation suppression of the implant alone exceeds threshold testing for future emergency contraception research.