Effect of Unplanned Pregnancy on Contraceptive Method Selection: Are Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives Underutilized? [207]

S. McClure, N. Patel, M. Hoffman, Deborah B. Ehrenthal
{"title":"Effect of Unplanned Pregnancy on Contraceptive Method Selection: Are Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives Underutilized? [207]","authors":"S. McClure, N. Patel, M. Hoffman, Deborah B. Ehrenthal","doi":"10.1097/01.AOG.0000463111.17560.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3.1 million pregnancies are considered unplanned in the United States, annually; approximately half are a result of contraceptive failure. We sought to determine whether having an unplanned pregnancy correlated with choosing a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC). METHODS: The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) database was used to assess antepartum contraceptive method and postpartum contraceptive method in women who experienced an unplanned pregnancy. Data collected between 2004 and 2009 from participating states, comprising Phases 5 and 6 of the PRAMS survey tool, were analyzed by univariable modeling to assess linkages between unplanned or planned pregnancy, method of contraception before pregnancy, and method of contraception postdelivery. Long-acting reversible contraception compared with non-LARC methods were compared in aggregate. RESULTS: Postpartum LARC was selected by 28.5% of participants in the unplanned pregnancy group (n=49,907); non-LARC, no contraception, or both was selected by 51.7%; and permanent sterilization was selected by 19.8%. In the planned pregnancy group (n=42,040), 18.4% selected LARC postpartum; 68.9% selected non-LARC, no contraception, or both; and permanent sterilization was selected by 12.7%. Our analysis showed a significant increase in postpartum LARC selection after unplanned pregnancy. Specifically, we found a 47.3% rate of change to postpartum LARC selection. Notably, 51.1% of women with an unplanned pregnancy reported no change in contraceptive method after delivery. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support current estimates of contraceptive failure and resultant unplanned pregnancies. The subsequent rate of change to LARC postpartum, although showing potential, reveals a gap between documented contraceptive failure rates and the uptake of reliable, reversible contraception.","PeriodicalId":19405,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","volume":"33 1","pages":"68S"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrics & Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000463111.17560.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3.1 million pregnancies are considered unplanned in the United States, annually; approximately half are a result of contraceptive failure. We sought to determine whether having an unplanned pregnancy correlated with choosing a long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC). METHODS: The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) database was used to assess antepartum contraceptive method and postpartum contraceptive method in women who experienced an unplanned pregnancy. Data collected between 2004 and 2009 from participating states, comprising Phases 5 and 6 of the PRAMS survey tool, were analyzed by univariable modeling to assess linkages between unplanned or planned pregnancy, method of contraception before pregnancy, and method of contraception postdelivery. Long-acting reversible contraception compared with non-LARC methods were compared in aggregate. RESULTS: Postpartum LARC was selected by 28.5% of participants in the unplanned pregnancy group (n=49,907); non-LARC, no contraception, or both was selected by 51.7%; and permanent sterilization was selected by 19.8%. In the planned pregnancy group (n=42,040), 18.4% selected LARC postpartum; 68.9% selected non-LARC, no contraception, or both; and permanent sterilization was selected by 12.7%. Our analysis showed a significant increase in postpartum LARC selection after unplanned pregnancy. Specifically, we found a 47.3% rate of change to postpartum LARC selection. Notably, 51.1% of women with an unplanned pregnancy reported no change in contraceptive method after delivery. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support current estimates of contraceptive failure and resultant unplanned pregnancies. The subsequent rate of change to LARC postpartum, although showing potential, reveals a gap between documented contraceptive failure rates and the uptake of reliable, reversible contraception.
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
意外妊娠对避孕方法选择的影响:长效可逆避孕药具是否未充分利用?[207]
目的:在美国,每年约有310万例怀孕被认为是计划外的;大约一半是避孕失败的结果。我们试图确定是否有计划外怀孕与选择长效可逆避孕药(LARC)相关。方法:采用妊娠风险评估监测系统(PRAMS)数据库对意外妊娠妇女的产前和产后避孕方法进行评估。2004年至2009年从参与州收集的数据,包括PRAMS调查工具的第5和第6阶段,通过单变量建模进行分析,以评估计划外或计划妊娠、孕前避孕方法和分娩后避孕方法之间的联系。将长效可逆避孕与非larc方法进行总体比较。结果:非计划妊娠组有28.5%的参与者选择了产后LARC (n=49,907);选择非larc、无避孕或两者兼而有之的占51.7%;选择永久绝育的占19.8%。在计划妊娠组(n= 42040), 18.4%选择产后LARC;68.9%选择非larc、不避孕或两者兼而有之;选择永久绝育的占12.7%。我们的分析显示,意外怀孕后,产后LARC选择显著增加。具体来说,我们发现产后LARC选择的变化率为47.3%。值得注意的是,51.1%的意外怀孕妇女在分娩后没有改变避孕方法。结论:本研究结果支持目前对避孕失败和由此导致的意外怀孕的估计。产后LARC的随后变化率虽然显示出潜力,但揭示了记录的避孕失败率与采用可靠、可逆避孕之间的差距。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Author Agreement. A Prospective Study to Assess for Histologic Changes on Vulvar Biopsies in Postmenopausal Women With Lichen Sclerosus Treated With Fractionated CO2 Laser Therapy [ID: 1339895] Prescribing Patterns for Postpartum Contraception Among Breastfeeding Patients Insured Under Medicaid [ID: 1375071] Evaluation of Perioperative Factors Contributing to Organ Space Surgical Site Infection After Minimally Invasive Hysterectomy [ID: 1374862] Delays in Diagnosis and Treatment of Appendicitis in Females [ID: 1375790]
×
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:604180095
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