2006-2017年美国城乡居民和紧急避孕药的使用、获取和咨询

Q2 Medicine Contraception: X Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061
Carly M. Milkowski, Erika C. Ziller, Katherine A. Ahrens
{"title":"2006-2017年美国城乡居民和紧急避孕药的使用、获取和咨询","authors":"Carly M. Milkowski,&nbsp;Erika C. Ziller,&nbsp;Katherine A. Ahrens","doi":"10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To estimate differences in emergency contraception (EC) use, access, and counseling by rural-urban residence among reproductive age women in the United States.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>We examined respondent data (2006–2017) from the National Survey of Family Growth for women ages 15-44 (<em>n =</em> 28,448) to estimate EC use, access, and counseling by rural-urban county of residence. Rural-urban prevalence ratios for EC outcome measures were estimated using predicted margins from logistic regression models, which were adjusted for demographic differences and current contraceptive method use. Changes in ever-use of EC over time were estimated for rural and urban respondents, separately, using Chi-square tests and trends were estimated using inverse variance weighted linear regression models.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During 2006 to 2017, 10% of rural and 19% of urban women who had ever had sex reported ever using EC pills. Among rural women, ever-use increased from 6% in 2006-2008 to 15% in 2015-2017 (Chi-square <em>p &lt;</em> 0.01; trend <em>p</em>-value &lt; 0.01); among urban women, ever-use increased from 11% to 27% (Chi-square <em>p &lt;</em> 0.01; trend <em>p</em>-value &lt; 0.01). Rural and urban women were similarly likely to have obtained EC without a prescription and from a drug store. Rural women were less likely to have received EC counseling than urban women; however, counseling rates were low among all women.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We observed differences in EC ever-use and receipt of EC counseling by rural-urban residence among US women ages 15 to 44, adding to the evidence that rural-urban residence is an important factor in reproductive health. More research is needed to explore factors contributing to rural-urban differences in EC use.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Our key finding that EC use varied by rural-urban county residence offers additional evidence that rural-urban residence should be considered in reproductive health practice and policy. We discuss areas for future research into potential barriers to EC use in rural populations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10655,"journal":{"name":"Contraception: X","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100061"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rural-urban residence and emergency contraception use, access, and counseling in the United States, 2006-2017\",\"authors\":\"Carly M. Milkowski,&nbsp;Erika C. Ziller,&nbsp;Katherine A. Ahrens\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To estimate differences in emergency contraception (EC) use, access, and counseling by rural-urban residence among reproductive age women in the United States.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>We examined respondent data (2006–2017) from the National Survey of Family Growth for women ages 15-44 (<em>n =</em> 28,448) to estimate EC use, access, and counseling by rural-urban county of residence. Rural-urban prevalence ratios for EC outcome measures were estimated using predicted margins from logistic regression models, which were adjusted for demographic differences and current contraceptive method use. Changes in ever-use of EC over time were estimated for rural and urban respondents, separately, using Chi-square tests and trends were estimated using inverse variance weighted linear regression models.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During 2006 to 2017, 10% of rural and 19% of urban women who had ever had sex reported ever using EC pills. Among rural women, ever-use increased from 6% in 2006-2008 to 15% in 2015-2017 (Chi-square <em>p &lt;</em> 0.01; trend <em>p</em>-value &lt; 0.01); among urban women, ever-use increased from 11% to 27% (Chi-square <em>p &lt;</em> 0.01; trend <em>p</em>-value &lt; 0.01). Rural and urban women were similarly likely to have obtained EC without a prescription and from a drug store. Rural women were less likely to have received EC counseling than urban women; however, counseling rates were low among all women.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We observed differences in EC ever-use and receipt of EC counseling by rural-urban residence among US women ages 15 to 44, adding to the evidence that rural-urban residence is an important factor in reproductive health. More research is needed to explore factors contributing to rural-urban differences in EC use.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Our key finding that EC use varied by rural-urban county residence offers additional evidence that rural-urban residence should be considered in reproductive health practice and policy. We discuss areas for future research into potential barriers to EC use in rural populations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception: X\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100061\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.conx.2021.100061\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151621000083\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151621000083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的评估美国不同城乡育龄妇女在紧急避孕(EC)使用、获取和咨询方面的差异。研究设计我们检查了来自全国15-44岁女性家庭增长调查(n = 28,448)的受访者数据(2006-2017),以估计农村-城市居住县的EC使用、获取和咨询。使用逻辑回归模型的预测边际估计EC结果测量的城乡患病率,该模型根据人口统计学差异和当前避孕方法的使用情况进行了调整。使用卡方检验分别估计农村和城市受访者的EC使用随时间的变化,并使用反方差加权线性回归模型估计趋势。结果2006年至2017年,有过性行为的农村妇女中有10%和城市妇女中有19%报告曾使用过避孕药。农村妇女的使用率从2006-2008年的6%上升到2015-2017年的15%(卡方p <0.01;趋势p值<0.01);在城市女性中,曾经使用过的药物从11%增加到27%(卡方p <0.01;趋势p值<0.01)。农村和城市妇女在没有处方的情况下从药店获得EC的可能性相似。农村妇女接受EC咨询的可能性低于城市妇女;然而,所有女性的咨询率都很低。结论我们观察到15至44岁的美国女性在EC的使用和接受EC咨询方面的差异,进一步证明城乡居住是影响生殖健康的重要因素。需要更多的研究来探索导致城乡电子邮件使用差异的因素。我们的关键发现是,EC的使用随城乡居民的不同而不同,这为在生殖健康实践和政策中应考虑城乡居民提供了额外的证据。我们讨论了在农村人口中使用EC的潜在障碍的未来研究领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Rural-urban residence and emergency contraception use, access, and counseling in the United States, 2006-2017

Objective

To estimate differences in emergency contraception (EC) use, access, and counseling by rural-urban residence among reproductive age women in the United States.

Study design

We examined respondent data (2006–2017) from the National Survey of Family Growth for women ages 15-44 (n = 28,448) to estimate EC use, access, and counseling by rural-urban county of residence. Rural-urban prevalence ratios for EC outcome measures were estimated using predicted margins from logistic regression models, which were adjusted for demographic differences and current contraceptive method use. Changes in ever-use of EC over time were estimated for rural and urban respondents, separately, using Chi-square tests and trends were estimated using inverse variance weighted linear regression models.

Results

During 2006 to 2017, 10% of rural and 19% of urban women who had ever had sex reported ever using EC pills. Among rural women, ever-use increased from 6% in 2006-2008 to 15% in 2015-2017 (Chi-square p < 0.01; trend p-value < 0.01); among urban women, ever-use increased from 11% to 27% (Chi-square p < 0.01; trend p-value < 0.01). Rural and urban women were similarly likely to have obtained EC without a prescription and from a drug store. Rural women were less likely to have received EC counseling than urban women; however, counseling rates were low among all women.

Conclusion

We observed differences in EC ever-use and receipt of EC counseling by rural-urban residence among US women ages 15 to 44, adding to the evidence that rural-urban residence is an important factor in reproductive health. More research is needed to explore factors contributing to rural-urban differences in EC use.

Implications

Our key finding that EC use varied by rural-urban county residence offers additional evidence that rural-urban residence should be considered in reproductive health practice and policy. We discuss areas for future research into potential barriers to EC use in rural populations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contraception: X
Contraception: X Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outpatient medical management of later second trimester abortion (18–23.6 weeks) with procedural evacuation backup: A large case series Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking Maximizing the effectiveness of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: The case for precoital use How does person-centered maternity care relate to postpartum contraceptive counseling and use? Evidence from a longitudinal study of women delivering at health facilities in Ethiopia Dilation and evacuation versus medication abortion at 15–24 weeks of gestation in low-middle income country: A retrospective cohort study
×
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