Neighborhood-level racialized socioeconomic deprivation and contraceptive use in the United States, 2011-2019.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 DEMOGRAPHY Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-09 DOI:10.1111/psrh.12269
Alice F Cartwright, Maeve Wallace, Jessica Su, Siân Curtis, Gustavo Angeles, Ilene S Speizer
{"title":"Neighborhood-level racialized socioeconomic deprivation and contraceptive use in the United States, 2011-2019.","authors":"Alice F Cartwright, Maeve Wallace, Jessica Su, Siân Curtis, Gustavo Angeles, Ilene S Speizer","doi":"10.1111/psrh.12269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The social and structural environments where people live are understudied in contraceptive research. We assessed if neighborhood measures of racialized socioeconomic deprivation are associated with contraceptive use in the United States.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used restricted geographic data from four waves of the National Survey of Family Growth (2011-2019) limited to non-pregnant women ages 15-44 who had sex in the last 12 months. We characterized respondent neighborhoods (census tracts) with the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE), a measure of spatial social polarization, into areas of concentrated privilege (predominantly white residents living on high incomes) and deprivation (predominantly people of color living on low incomes). We used multivariable binary and multinomial logistic regression with year fixed effects to estimate adjusted associations between ICE tertile and contraceptive use and method type. We also assessed for an interactive effect of ICE and health insurance type.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 14,396 respondents, 88.4% in neighborhoods of concentrated deprivation used any contraception, compared to 92.7% in the most privileged neighborhoods. In adjusted models, the predicted probability of using any contraception in neighborhoods of concentrated deprivation was 2.8 percentage points lower than in neighborhoods of concentrated privilege, 5.0 percentage points higher for barrier/coital dependent methods, and 4.3 percentage points lower for short-acting methods. Those with Medicaid were less likely to use any contraception than those with private insurance irrespective of neighborhood classification.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the salience of structural factors for contraceptive use and the need for continued examination of structural oppressions to inform health policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47632,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11260244/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12269","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The social and structural environments where people live are understudied in contraceptive research. We assessed if neighborhood measures of racialized socioeconomic deprivation are associated with contraceptive use in the United States.

Methods: We used restricted geographic data from four waves of the National Survey of Family Growth (2011-2019) limited to non-pregnant women ages 15-44 who had sex in the last 12 months. We characterized respondent neighborhoods (census tracts) with the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE), a measure of spatial social polarization, into areas of concentrated privilege (predominantly white residents living on high incomes) and deprivation (predominantly people of color living on low incomes). We used multivariable binary and multinomial logistic regression with year fixed effects to estimate adjusted associations between ICE tertile and contraceptive use and method type. We also assessed for an interactive effect of ICE and health insurance type.

Results: Of the 14,396 respondents, 88.4% in neighborhoods of concentrated deprivation used any contraception, compared to 92.7% in the most privileged neighborhoods. In adjusted models, the predicted probability of using any contraception in neighborhoods of concentrated deprivation was 2.8 percentage points lower than in neighborhoods of concentrated privilege, 5.0 percentage points higher for barrier/coital dependent methods, and 4.3 percentage points lower for short-acting methods. Those with Medicaid were less likely to use any contraception than those with private insurance irrespective of neighborhood classification.

Conclusions: This study highlights the salience of structural factors for contraceptive use and the need for continued examination of structural oppressions to inform health policy.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2011-2019 年美国邻里层面的种族化社会经济贫困与避孕药具使用情况。
导言:在避孕研究中,人们生活的社会和结构环境未得到充分研究。我们评估了美国种族化社会经济贫困的邻里措施是否与避孕药具的使用有关:我们使用了全国家庭成长调查(2011-2019 年)四次波次中的限制性地理数据,这些数据仅限于在过去 12 个月中有过性行为的 15-44 岁非怀孕女性。我们用衡量空间社会两极分化的极端集中指数(ICE)将受访社区(人口普查区)划分为特权集中区(主要是高收入的白人居民)和贫困区(主要是低收入的有色人种)。我们使用带有年份固定效应的多变量二元和多叉逻辑回归来估计 ICE 层级与避孕药具使用和方法类型之间的调整关联。我们还评估了 ICE 和医疗保险类型的交互影响:在 14,396 名受访者中,88.4% 的集中贫困社区居民使用任何避孕措施,而在最优越的社区,这一比例为 92.7%。在调整后的模型中,集中贫困地区使用任何避孕方法的预测概率比集中优越地区低 2.8 个百分点,阻隔/宫内依赖避孕方法的预测概率高 5.0 个百分点,短效避孕方法的预测概率低 4.3 个百分点。与拥有私人保险的人群相比,无论邻里分类如何,拥有医疗补助的人群使用任何避孕措施的可能性都较低:本研究强调了结构性因素对避孕药具使用的显著影响,以及继续研究结构性压迫的必要性,以便为卫生政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.40%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health provides the latest peer-reviewed, policy-relevant research and analysis on sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States and other developed countries. For more than four decades, Perspectives has offered unique insights into how reproductive health issues relate to one another; how they are affected by policies and programs; and their implications for individuals and societies. Published four times a year, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health includes original research, special reports and commentaries on the latest developments in the field of sexual and reproductive health, as well as staff-written summaries of recent findings in the field.
期刊最新文献
Understanding abortion legality and trimester of abortion care in Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky, three abortion‐restrictive states Exploring adolescent-facing US clinicians' perceptions of their contraceptive counseling and use of shared decision-making: A qualitative study. "It shouldn't be just hush-hush": A qualitative community-based study of menstrual health communication among women in Philadelphia. Amicus brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers supports mifepristone's safety and effectiveness. Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1