Search

Objective: To estimate abortion rates among subpopulations of women in 2008, assess changes in subpopulation abortion rates since 2000, and estimate the lifetime incidence of abortion.Methods: We combined secondary data from several sources, including the 2008 Abortion Patient Survey, the Current Population Surveys for 2008 and 2009, and the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth, to estimate abortion rates by subgroup and lifetime incidence of abortion for U.S. women of reproductive age.Results: The abortion rate declined 8.0% between 2000 and 2008, from 21.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 to 19.6 per 1,000. Decreases in abortion were experienced by most subgroups of women. One notable exception was poor women; this group accounted for 42.4% of abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 17.5% between 2000 and 2008 from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000. In addition to poor women, abortion rates were highest for women who were cohabiting (52.0 per 1,000), aged 20-24 (39.9 per 1,000), or non-Hispanic African American (40.2 per 1,000). If the 2008 abortion rate prevails, 30.0% of women will have an abortion by age 45.Conclusion: Abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women, and restrictions on abortion disproportionately affect this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine trends in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods-the intrauterine device (IUD) and implant--and the extent to which these methods have replaced permanent sterilization and less effective short-acting methods.Design: We tabulated data from female survey respondents overall and by demographic subgroups. We performed t-tests of the differences in the proportions of female contraceptors using LARC in 2007 and 2009. We also looked at use of LARC, sterilization, other methods, and no method among women at risk of unintended pregnancy.Setting: In-home survey.Patient(s): All female respondents to the surveys.Intervention(s): None.Main Outcome Measure(s): Current use of LARC methods in 2009, and change in use from 2007.Result(s): The proportion of contraceptors using LARC increased significantly from 2.4% in 2002 to 3.7% in 2007 and 8.5% in 2009. The increase occurred among women in almost every age, race, education, and income group. Among women at risk of unintended pregnancy, increases in LARC use more than offset decreases in sterilization.Conclusion(s): LARC methods (primarily IUDs) are contributing to an increase in contraceptive effectiveness in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

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., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (© 2021 The Author(s).)

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., (© 2020 The Author(s).)

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., (© 2019 The Authors.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: For individuals traveling significant distances for time-sensitive abortion care, accurate information about service options and locations is critical, but little is known regarding information barriers that individuals may encounter and strategies for circumventing these barriers., Study Design: In early 2015, we conducted in-depth interviews with 29 patients who had traveled for abortion care at six facilities in Michigan and New Mexico. We identified information-related barriers that respondents encountered in understanding their pregnancy options and/or where to obtain an abortion between the time of pregnancy discovery, including any contact with a crisis pregnancy center, to the day of the abortion procedure through inductive and deductive analysis., Results: We identified two logistical information-related barriers - a general lack of reproductive-related knowledge and unhelpfulness on the part of perceived members of the healthcare community - and one broader barrier of perceived stigma within respondents' narratives. Of the seven respondents who did not encounter a logistical information-related barrier, having previous personal or close experience with abortion and internet savviness were both identified as strategies enabling them to circumvent the barriers., Conclusion: Lack of clear, easy-to-find and accurate information about abortion services and availability represents a key barrier to obtaining an abortion; health care providers play a crucial role in ensuring pregnant patients' right to informed consent within reproductive health care delivery., Implications: Women's health care providers should provide their patients with the full spectrum of resources and referrals for pregnancy and abortion care; recent federal guidelines proposing to restrict abortion counseling and referral at Title X-funded facilities would only exacerbate the current challenges that pregnant patients encounter when seeking abortion-related information and further decrease linkages to timely, desired abortion care., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: As federal initiatives aim to fundamentally alter or dismantle the Affordable Care Act (ACA), evidence regarding the use of insurance among clients obtaining contraceptive care at Title X-funded facilities under ACA guidelines is essential to understanding what is at stake., Methods: A nationally representative sample of 2,911 clients seeking contraceptive care at 43 Title X-funded sites in 2016 completed a survey assessing their characteristics and insurance coverage and use. Chi-square tests for independence with adjustments for the sampling design were conducted to determine differences in insurance coverage and use across demographic characteristics and facility types., Results: Most clients (71%) had some form of public or private health insurance, and most of these (83%) planned to use it to pay for their services. Foreign-born clients were less likely than U.S.-born clients to have coverage (46% vs. 75%) and to use it (78% vs. 85%). Clients with private insurance were less likely than those with public insurance to plan to use their insurance (75% vs. 91%). More than one-quarter of clients not planning to use existing insurance for services indicated that the reason was that someone might find out., Conclusion: Coverage gaps persist among individuals seeking contraceptive care within the Title X network, despite evidence indicating increases in health insurance coverage among this population since implementation of the ACA. Future research should explore the impact of altering or eliminating the ACA both on the Title X provider network and on the individuals who rely on it., (© 2018 The Authors. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Guttmacher Institute.)

Introduction: Given the recent reforms in the United States health care system, including the passage and implementation of the Affordable Care Act, as well as anticipated upcoming changes to health care coverage, it is critical that publicly funded health care providers understand how to effectively work with their states' Medicaid programs and the private health insurance plans in their service areas to provide high-quality contraceptive care to the millions of women relying on services at these sites annually., Methods: We collected survey data from a nationally representative sample of 535 clinics providing family planning services that received Title X funding and conducted semistructured interviews with 23 administrators at a subsample of surveyed clinics to explore provider-reported experiences working with health plans and to identify barriers to, and practices that lead to, adequate reimbursement for services provided., Results: Providers report that knowledgeable staff are crucial to securing contracts with both public and private insurance plan issuers, and that the contracts they secure often include coverage restrictions on methods or services clinics offer their clients. Good staff relationships with issuers are key to obtaining adequate and consistent reimbursement for all covered services., Conclusions: Providers are trying to understand how insurance programs in their area knit together. Regardless of how U.S. health policies and delivery systems may change in the coming years, it is imperative that publicly funded family planning centers continue to work with health plans and maximize their third-party revenue to provide services to those in need., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective was to examine levels of, correlates of and changes in the use of individual and grouped methods of contraception among US females aged 15-44 from 2008 to 2014., Study Design: Using three rounds of the National Survey of Family Growth, we analyzed samples of 12,279 (2008), 5601 (2012) and 5699 (2014) females. We conducted simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses to identify associations between demographic characteristics and contraceptive use, as well as between characteristics and changes in use patterns., Results: In terms of overall trends in contraceptive use between 2008 and 2014, there was no significant change in the proportion of women who used a method among either all women (60%) or those at risk of unintended pregnancy (90%). Significant changes in use occurred among six methods. The largest increase in use was among users of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods, including the intrauterine device and implant - from 6% to 14% - across almost all population groups of female contraceptive users, while the largest decrease occurred among users of sterilization - from 37% to 28% - with lower-income women driving the decline in female sterilization and higher-income women driving the decline in a partner's sterilization as a primary method. Moderate increases were seen in the use of withdrawal and natural family planning., Conclusion: Most shifts in recent contraceptive use have occurred among the most effective methods - sterilization and LARCs. Differences in method-specific user characteristics underscore the importance of ensuring full access to the broad range of methods available., Implications: The lack of change in the overall use of contraceptives among women at risk for unintended pregnancy may have implications for the extent to which further declines in national rates of unintended pregnancy can be expected., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Abortion availability and accessibility vary by state. Especially in areas where services are restricted or limited, some women travel to obtain abortion services in other states. Little is known about the experience of travel to obtain abortion., Methods: In January and February 2015, in-depth interviews were conducted with 29 patients seeking abortion services at six facilities in Michigan and New Mexico. Eligible women were 18 or older, spoke English, and had traveled either across state lines or more than 100 miles within the state. Respondents were asked to describe their experience from pregnancy discovery to the day of the abortion procedure. Barriers to accessing abortion care and consequences of these barriers were identified through inductive and deductive analysis., Results: Respondents described 15 barriers to abortion care while traveling to obtain services, and three major consequences of experiencing those barriers. Barriers were grouped into five categories: travel-related logistical issues, system navigation issues, limited clinic options, financial issues, and state or clinic restrictions. Consequences were delays in care, negative mental health impacts and considering self-induction. The experience of barriers complicated the process of obtaining an abortion, but the effect of any individual barrier was unclear. Instead, the experience of multiple barriers appeared to have a compounding effect, resulting in negative consequences for women traveling for abortion., Conclusion: The amalgamation of barriers to abortion care experienced simultaneously can have significant consequences for patients., (© 2017 The Authors. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Guttmacher Institute.)

Births resulting from an unintended pregnancy affect individuals differentially, and some may experience more negative consequences than others. In this study, we sought to describe the mechanisms through which the severity of effects may be mitigated or exacerbated. We conducted in-depth interviews with 35 women and 30 men, all with a youngest child born resulting from an unintended pregnancy, in two urban sites in the United States. Respondents described both negative and positive effects of the child's birth in the areas of school; work and finances; partner relationships; personal health and outlook on life trajectories. Mechanisms through which unintended pregnancies mitigated or exacerbated certain effects fell at the individual (e.g. lifestyle modification), interpersonal (e.g. partner support) and structural (e.g. workplace flexibility) levels. These qualitative findings deepen understanding of the impact of unintended childbearing on the lives of women, men and families., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To examine whether race and reported history of abortion are associated with abortion stigma and miscarriage stigma, both independently and comparatively., Study Design: Self-administered surveys with 306 new mothers in Boston and Cincinnati, United States., Main Outcome Measures: Abortion stigma perception (ASP); miscarriage stigma perception (MSP); and comparative stigma perception (CSP: abortion stigma perception net of miscarriage stigma perception)., Results: Regardless of whether or not they reported having an abortion, white women perceived abortion (ASP) to be more stigmatizing than Black and Latina women. Perceptions of miscarriage stigma (MSP), on the other hand, were dependent on reporting an abortion. Among those who reported an abortion, Black women perceived more stigma from miscarriage than white women, but these responses were flipped for women who did not report abortion. Reporting abortion also influenced our comparative measure (CSP). Among those who did report an abortion, white women perceived more stigma from abortion than miscarriage, while Black and Latina women perceived more stigma from miscarriage than abortion., Conclusions: By measuring abortion stigma in comparison to miscarriage stigma, we can reach a more nuanced understanding of how perceptions of reproductive stigmas are stratified by race and reported reproductive history. Clinicians should be aware that reproductive stigmas do not similarly affect all groups. Stigma from specific reproductive outcomes is more or less salient dependent upon a woman's social position and lived experience., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are one of the most effective forms of reversible contraception and can reduce unintended pregnancy rates. We explored practice characteristics associated with IUD services across a network of primary care practices in New York City during 2010-2013., Study Design: Data were extracted from electronic health records (EHRs) for 253 primary care practices participating in an EHR quality improvement program in New York City. We used diagnostic and procedure codes to count IUD insertions and removals among females aged 10-49 years during 2010-2013. Logistic regression models predicted the likelihood of IUD insertion, removal or no activity for 2013, based on practice characteristics. We stratified trends in IUD services over time by practice type and specialty., Results: From 2010 to 2013, the proportion of practices that inserted IUDs increased slightly from 4.7% to 6.3% (p=0.17), and the proportion removing IUDs increased from 8.3% to 12.3% (p<0.01). More than 60% of obstetricians/gynecologists and midwives performed insertions or removals each year; fewer than 10% of internal medicine and pediatric providers did so. Community health centers had higher odds of performing removals than independent practices (adjusted odds ratio=10.24, 95% confidence interval: 3.37-31.17). Practices seeing >66% female patients had higher odds of performing both insertions and removals., Conclusions: From 2010 to 2013, IUD services increased but remained low among primary care practices in this network. Provider training and system readiness programs should include independent primary care practices, which rarely provide IUDs, to ensure that women can receive IUDs or IUD service referrals in the primary care setting., Implications: Much of primary care in the United States takes place in independent practices with one or two providers. Our study of a major urban area found that these types of practices are much less likely to offer IUD services than community health centers. Ensuring that small practices know where to refer women for IUD insertion and removal services is warranted to ensure women's access to IUDs., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that privately insured women can obtain contraceptive services and supplies without cost sharing. This may substantially affect women who prefer an intrauterine device (IUD), a long-acting reversible contraceptive, because of high upfront costs that they would otherwise face. However, imperfect enforcement of and exceptions to this provision could limit its effect., Study Design: We analyzed administrative data for 417,221 women whose physicians queried their insurance plans from January 2012 to March 2014 to determine whether each woman had insurance coverage for a hormonal IUD and the extent of that coverage., Results: In January 2012, 58% of women would have incurred out-of-pocket costs for an IUD, compared to only 13% of women in March 2014. Differentials by age and region virtually dissolved over the period studied, which suggests that the ACA reduced inequality among insured women., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the cost of hormonal IUDs fell to US$0 for most insured women following the implementation of the ACA., Implications: Financial barriers to one of the most effective methods of contraception fell substantially following the ACA. If more women interested in this method can access it, this may contribute to a decline in unintended pregnancies in the United States., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine current levels, current correlates of, and changes in long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use, including intrauterine devices and implants, among females aged 15-44 years using contraception between 2008-2010 and 2011-2013 with specific attention to associations between race, income, and age and their LARC use., Methods: We analyzed data from two rounds of the National Survey of Family Growth, nationally representative samples of females aged 15-44 years, consisting of 6,428 females in 2008-2010 and 5,601 females in 2011-2013. We conducted simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses with adjustments for the sampling design to identify demographic characteristics predictive of LARC use and changes in these patterns between the two time periods. In this cross-sectional, descriptive study, our primary outcome of interest was current prevalence of LARC use among all contraceptive users at the time of the interview., Results: The prevalence of LARC use among contracepting U.S. females increased from 8.5% in 2009 to 11.6% in 2012 (P<.01). The most significant increases occurred among Hispanic females (from 8.5% to 15.1%), those with private insurance (7.1-11.1%), those with fewer than two sexual partners in the previous year (9.2-12.4%), and those who were nulliparous (2.1-5.9%) (all P<.01). In multivariable analyses adjusting for key demographic characteristics, the strongest associations with LARC use in 2012 were parity (adjusted odds ratios [ORs] 4.3-5.5) and having a history of stopping non-LARC hormonal use (adjusted OR 1.9). Women aged 35-44 years (adjusted OR 0.3) were less likely to be LARC users than their counterparts (all P<.001). Poverty status was not associated with LARC use. There were no differences in discontinuation of LARC methods resulting from dissatisfaction between minority women and non-Hispanic white women., Conclusion: During the most recent time period surveyed, use of LARC methods, particularly intrauterine devices, increased almost uniformly across the population of users., Level of Evidence: III.

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.

Background: The objective of this research was to examine individuals' knowledge about abortion in the context of their knowledge about other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) issues, including contraception, abortion, pregnancy, and birth., Methods: During August 2012, we administered an online questionnaire to a randomly selected sample of 639 men and women of reproductive age (18-44 years) in the United States., Findings: Respondents reported the highest levels of perceived knowledge about SRH in general (81%), followed by pregnancy and birth (53%), contraception (48%), and abortion (35%); knowledge of specific items within each of these areas paralleled this pattern. Respondents who believe that abortion should be allowed in at least some circumstances were more likely to be correct regarding the safety and consequences of contraception and abortion. Characteristics associated with higher levels of knowledge regarding abortion-related issues included having higher levels of knowledge about non-abortion-related SRH issues and having less restrictive abortion beliefs., Conclusions: Women and men are not well-informed about the relative safety and consequences of SRH-related experiences. Many overestimate their knowledge, and personal beliefs about abortion restrictions may influence their knowledge about the safety and consequences of abortion and contraception. Providers of SRH services should provide comprehensive evidence-based information about the risks and consequences of SRH matters during consultations, particularly in the case of abortion providers serving women who hold more restrictive abortion beliefs., (Copyright © 2013 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Study Objective: To describe and explore provider- and patient-level perspectives regarding long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for teens and young adults (ages 16-24)., Methods: Data collection occurred between June and December 2011. We first conducted telephone interviews with administrative directors at 20 publicly funded facilities that provide family planning services. At 6 of these sites, we conducted a total of 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with facility staff and 48 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with facility clients ages 16-24., Results: Staff in the FGDs did not generally equate being a teen with ineligibility for IUDs. In contrast to staff, one-quarter of the young women did perceive young age as rendering them ineligible. Clients and staff agreed that the "forgettable" nature of the methods and their duration were some of LARC's most significant advantages. They also agreed that fear of pain associated with both insertion and removal and negative side effects were disadvantages. Some aspects of IUDs and implants were perceived as advantages by some clients but disadvantages by others. Common challenges to providing LARC-specific services to younger patients included extra time required to counsel young patients about LARC methods, outdated clinic policies requiring multiple visits to obtain IUDs, and a perceived higher removal rate among young women. The most commonly cited strategy for addressing many of these challenges was securing supplementary funding to support the provision of these services to young patients., Conclusion: Incorporating young women's perspectives on LARC methods into publicly funded family planning facilities' efforts to provide these methods to a younger population may increase their use among young women., (Copyright © 2013 North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Increased use of contraceptive services, including long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), among sexually active teens and young adults could significantly reduce unintended pregnancy. Objectives were to describe youth-friendly contraceptive services (including LARC) available to teens and young adults at U.S. publicly funded family planning facilities., Methods: Between April and September 2011, center directors at a nationally representative sample of 1,196 U.S. publicly funded family planning facilities were surveyed to assess accessibility and provision of contraceptive services for teens and young adults; 584 (52%) responded., Results: Facilities were accessible to young clients in several ways, including not requiring scheduled appointments for method refills (67%) and having flexible hours (64%). Most facilities provided outreach and/or education to young people (70%), and 27% used social network media to do this. Most facilities took steps to ensure confidentiality for young clients. These youth-friendly practices were more common at Planned Parenthood, Title X, and reproductive health focused facilities than at other facilities. Long-acting reversible contraceptive methods were regularly discussed with younger clients at less than half the facilities. Youth-friendly sites had increased rates of LARC provision among younger clients. The most common challenges to providing contraceptive and LARC services to younger clients were the costs of LARC methods (60%), inconvenient clinic hours (51%), staff concerns about intrauterine device (IUD) use among teens (47%), and limited training on implant insertion (47%)., Conclusions: Improving the ability of family planning facilities to provide youth-friendly contraceptive and LARC-specific methods to younger clients may increase the use of highly effective contraception in this population., (Copyright © 2013 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.)

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.

Analysis of data from the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth indicates that use of emergency contraception in the United States has increased after changes in its prescription status in 2006. However, clinicians continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring that women have accurate information about emergency contraception., (Copyright © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine characteristics of U.S. women that are associated with use of long-acting reversible contraception and changes in these characteristics between 2002 and 2006-2008., Methods: We analyzed data from two nationally representative samples of women aged 15-44 in the National Survey of Family Growth, including 7,643 women in 2002 and 7,356 women in 2006-2008. We conducted simple and multinomial logistic regression analyses to identify demographic and reproductive health characteristics associated with use of long-acting reversible contraception., Results: Long-acting reversible contraception (intrauterine devices and subdermal implants) use among U.S. women using contraception increased from 2.4% in 2002 to 5.6% in 2006-2008. The largest increases in long-acting reversible contraception use during this time occurred among the youngest and oldest age groups, non-Hispanic white and non-Hispanic African American women, foreign-born women, and those in the highest income group. High prevalence of long-acting reversible contraception use in 2006-2008 was seen among women who had given birth once or twice (10%), foreign-born women (8.8%), and Hispanic women (8.4%). After adjusting for key demographic and reproductive health characteristics, in comparison with users of other contraceptive methods and with those not using contraception who were at risk for unintended pregnancy, foreign-born women and women who experienced coitarche before age 18 were approximately twice as likely to be using long-acting reversible contraception as women without those characteristics., Conclusion: A more diverse population of women used long-acting reversible contraception in 2006-2008 compared with 2002. However, there is likely more potential for increased uptake, especially among populations historically not considered to be candidates for these methods.

Stigmatization is a deeply contextual, dynamic social process; stigma from abortion is the discrediting of individuals as a result of their association with abortion. Abortion stigma is under-researched and under-theorized, and the few existing studies focus only on women who have had abortions. We build on this work, drawing from the social science literature to describe three groups whom we posit are affected by abortion stigma: Women who have had abortions, individuals who work in facilities that provide abortion, and supporters of women who have had abortions, including partners, family, and friends, as well as abortion researchers and advocates. Although these groups are not homogeneous, some common experiences within the groups--and differences between the groups--help to illuminate how people manage abortion stigma and begin to reveal the roots of this stigma itself. We discuss five reasons why abortion is stigmatized, beginning with the rationale identified by Kumar, Hessini, and Mitchell: The violation of female ideals of sexuality and motherhood. We then suggest additional causes of abortion stigma, including attributing personhood to the fetus, legal restrictions, the idea that abortion is dirty or unhealthy, and the use of stigma as a tool for anti-abortion efforts. Although not exhaustive, these causes of abortion stigma illustrate how it is made manifest for affected groups. Understanding abortion stigma will inform strategies to reduce it, which has direct implications for improving access to care and better health for those whom stigma affects., (Copyright © 2011 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Abortion facilities represent a potentially convenient setting for providing contraception to women experiencing unintended pregnancies. This analysis examines a range of factors that may act as barriers to integrating contraceptive and abortion services and documents abortion providers' perspectives on their role in their patients' contraceptive care., Methods: Administrators from 173 large, nonhospital facilities that provide abortions in the United States responded to a structured survey between May and September 2009. We used chi-square tests to assess differences in categorical outcomes., Results: Although the majority of U.S. abortion facilities offer a range of contraceptive methods on site, facility staff identified multiple barriers to full integration of the two services, in particular, insurance, patient, and cost barriers. Few of these perceived barriers, however, were associated with differences in the actual provision of most contraceptive methods. Specialized abortion clinics that do not accept health insurance were less likely to have highly effective methods, such as intrauterine devices and implants, on site. Facilities located in Medicaid states were more likely to accept both public and private health insurance for contraceptive services., Conclusion: Increased access to contraceptive services during abortion care is one strategy for reducing repeat unintended pregnancy, and stakeholders at all levels--including abortion providers, insurance companies, and policy makers--have a role to play in achieving this goal., (Copyright © 2011 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: About half of US women having abortions have already had at least one prior abortion. Facilitating access to contraception may help these women avoid subsequent unintended pregnancies. Information is needed to document the availability of contraceptive services in abortion care settings in the United States., Study Design: Data for this cross-sectional mixed-methods study were collected between December 2008 and September 2009 and come from two sources: 15 semistructured telephone interviews and 173 structured questionnaires administered to a nationally representative sample of eligible facilities. Respondents were administrators at large (400+ abortions per year), nonhospital facilities that provide abortion services in the United States., Results: Virtually all (96%) abortion clinics incorporate contraceptive education into abortion care, and the three most common methods reported to be distributed are the birth control pill (99%), the vaginal ring (61%) and Depo-Provera (58%). Almost one-third reported being able to offer post-abortion intrauterine device insertion. Most facilities (82%) accept some form of insurance for either contraceptive or abortion services, and those with a broader family planning focus are significantly more likely to do so. Administrators at the majority of facilities (56%) report that patients most commonly do not pay additional fees for contraceptive services because they are included in the cost of abortion services., Conclusion: Although almost all large, non-hospital abortion providers in the United States are able to provide some level of contraceptive care to their abortion patients, the degree to which they are able to do so is influenced by a wide range of factors., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: Traditional measures of pregnancy intentions that are dichotomous and retrospective do not fully capture the complexity surrounding women's plans to become pregnant., Methods: During January-June 2008, 249 women aged 15-44 awaiting pregnancy test results at family planning clinics in Pittsburgh completed a survey containing both single- and multi-item measures of pregnancy intentions. Chi-square analyses were used to assess differences between subgroups of women., Results: Few women were trying to become or planning for pregnancy (11% on the single-item measure; 20% on the multi-item measure), while approximately one-third of the sample were not trying to become or planning for pregnancy (31% on the single-item and 36% on the multi-item measure). The single-item measure categorized more women as ambivalent about pregnancy (58%) than did the multi-item measure (44%). Of women categorized as ambivalent by the single-item measure, 62% were also categorized as ambivalent by the multi-item measure. Overall, 68% of responses to the two measures were concordant. With both measures, women who were not planning or trying for pregnancy were more likely than those who were planning for pregnancy or who were ambivalent to indicate that they planned to have an abortion if their test was positive (27-29% vs. 0-2%)., Conclusions: Prospective assessment of pregnancy intention with either a single- or a multi-item measure may allow for a more nuanced assessment of pregnancy intention than current measures. The multi-item measure may reduce the number of women categorized as ambivalent and aid the development of targeted contraceptive and preconception counseling interventions.

Study Objective: To assess emergency contraception (EC) counseling and prescribing practices of children's hospital emergency department (ED) directors and the use of EC protocols in these settings., Design: Cross-sectional study of children's hospital ED directors responding to a 15-minute 44-item semi-structured survey during telephone interviews., Participants: 50 of 96 eligible directors of children's hospital EDs in the United States., Main Outcome Measures: EC protocols, EC counseling processes, EC prescribing practices., Results: Most (80%) ED directors reported always offering EC as part of sexual assault care; 66% were more likely to provide onsite EC in these situations. Only 52% identified the progestin-only regimen as the EC dispensed in their ED, and most (96%) limited provision to fewer than 120 hours after sex. Although 58% of ED directors reported ever prescribing ongoing contraception when providing EC, none had prescribed EC for future use. Written ED protocols for providing EC were more common for sexual assault care (76%) than for non-sexual assault care (14%). Directors who worked at hospitals with a sexual assault program were less likely to discuss all the recommended topics for EC counseling., Conclusions: The recommended standard of care for providing EC to adolescents in children's hospital EDs is not being met. Although risk of pregnancy following sexual assault and consensual unprotected sex is identical, discrepant practices emerged from this survey of pediatric ED directors. Increased education and policy initiatives within children's hospital EDs are needed to standardize EC services for adolescents in this setting.

Context: Few nationally representative studies have examined the prevalence and predictors of emergency contraception use or of receipt of counseling about the method. The impact of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's 2006 approval of behind-the-counter sales of the method to women aged 18 and older remains to be seen; therefore, understanding patterns of use and counseling before the 2006 policy change is necessary to assess its impact., Methods: Data collected from 7,643 women aged 15-44 participating in the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression to assess predictors of receipt of counseling and use of emergency contraception., Results: Overall, 3% of women reported that a clinician had discussed emergency contraception with them in the past year, and 4% of those who had ever had sex with a man reported having used the method. Only 4% of those who had seen a gynecologist in the past year reported having received counseling. Women's likelihood of having received counseling was reduced if they were 30 or older (odds ratio, 0.2), and was elevated if they were Hispanic (4.1), black (2.6) or ever-married (2.4). Receipt of counseling in the last 12 months was the strongest predictor of ever-use (11.7)., Conclusions: Clinicians can play a pivotal role in ensuring that women have accurate information about how to access and use emergency contraception. However, efforts are needed to explore other ways to deliver this counseling.