Search

While many frameworks exist for building person-centered and equitable systems of contraceptive care, evidence indicates that the reality of patients' experiences of care is often not in alignment with these ideals. Historical and current contexts of racism in the healthcare system contribute to negative perceptions and experiences of care, as well as reduced care-seeking behavior, for those who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). Our objective in this analysis is to examine whether people's past experiences of contraceptive care are a driver of subsequent barriers to contraceptive access, and whether this relationship differs across racial and ethnic identity. We draw on panel data from five waves of surveys collected between 2018-2023 among patients ages fifteen and older seeking family planning care at sites that receive public funding for these services in Arizona, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Overall and stratified by race/ethnicity, we examine cross-sectional and longitudinal associations between patients' experiences of high-quality, person-centered contraceptive care and three contraceptive access outcomes: use of preferred contraception, satisfaction with contraceptive method, and experience of no barriers to accessing preferred contraception. We find longitudinal associations between patients experiencing higher-quality, more person-centered contraceptive care and subsequent satisfaction with contraceptive methods. Among non-Hispanic white-identifying patients, we find similar associations between shifting to higher-quality contraceptive care and use of preferred contraception, but we find no statistical relationship between experiencing higher-quality care and subsequent contraceptive outcomes for patients who identify as Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color (BIPOC). Highlighting the dissonance between clinical guidance for quality contraceptive care and patient experiences of care, and especially whether similar experiences across racial and ethnic identity lead to differential outcomes, is a crucial step toward bringing contraceptive care systems into alignment with principles of sexual and reproductive health equity., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Kavanaugh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

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.

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., (© 2024 The Authors. Health Services Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Health Research and Educational Trust.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Please see ICMJE form(s) for author conflicts of interest. These have been provided as supplementary materials., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Project HOPE - The People-To-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

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., Competing Interests: AMG, AHB, JA, and CM received support for this work from a grant from Arnold Ventures. DC, AC, CL, WSR, and ESV received honoraria from the University of California, Berkeley for participation in the Person-Centered Contraceptive Access Metrics Working Group for this project. AMG has received funding the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; consulting fees from the Coalition to Expand Contraceptive Access (CECA), and the Guttmacher Institute; and honoraria from the University of Kansas Medical Center, the University of Minnesota, and Elsevier. She is on the Board of Directors of Ibis Reproductive Health. JA has been a paid consultant for Medicines360, Insight Metrics, and Population Services International and received honoraria from the Society of Family Planning (SFP). LS has been a paid consultant for the University of California, San Francisco and JSI Research and Training Institute, and received honoraria from the University of Missouri, Kansas City. JB was a public board member of the ACOG Executive Board; she has received support from her employer for work-related travel; and her organization receives a Title X grant, private foundation funds, and a stipend for participation in CECA workgroups. CD receives royalties from Wolters Kluwer; has been a paid consultant for Modern Fertility; has received payments from Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), JSI, SFP, and Elsevier; and support for meetings/travel from PPFA. WSR has received funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, an anonymous foundation, and the Collaborative for Gender and Reproductive Equity; honoraria from CECA and SFP; support for meetings/travel from Power to Decide and the SFP Research Fund; and has served on the Feminist Women's Health Center Board of Directors. LD, BF, RM, TBS, and MLK declare no competing interests., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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., (© 2023 University of Ottawa.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Fuentes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

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., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures: The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

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.

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., (© 2022 The Authors.)

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.

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.

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestThe authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article., (© The Author(s) 2022.)