BACKGROUND: We compared contraceptive prevalence reported in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project (CHOICE) at time of enrollment with estimates from representative surveys, the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and 2006 Missouri Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). STUDY DESIGN: We calculated survey weights for CHOICE participants and compared selected demographic characteristics and prevalence estimates of current contraceptive methods being used at the time of enrollment. RESULTS: Compared with the NSFG, CHOICE participants at the time of enrollment were less likely to be contraceptive pill users (16.1% vs. 24.0%) and more likely to use condoms (23.8% vs. 13.8%). Compared with the BRFSS, CHOICE participants were more likely to use condoms (20.4% vs. 12.9%) and withdrawal (6.6% vs. 0.4%). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in sampling strategies between CHOICE and state and national surveys, the contraceptive prevalence estimates were largely similar. This information combined with the high rates of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use after enrollment by CHOICE particiants that have been previously reported by study participants may imply that cost and restricted access to LARC could be essential factors in the low rates of LARC use in the United States.
BACKGROUND: We compared contraceptive prevalence reported in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project (CHOICE) at time of enrollment with estimates from representative surveys, the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and 2006 Missouri Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). STUDY DESIGN: We calculated survey weights for CHOICE participants and compared selected demographic characteristics and prevalence estimates of current contraceptive methods being used at the time of enrollment. RESULTS: Compared with the NSFG, CHOICE participants at the time of enrollment were less likely to be contraceptive pill users (16.1% vs. 24.0%) and more likely to use condoms (23.8% vs. 13.8%). Compared with the BRFSS, CHOICE participants were more likely to use condoms (20.4% vs. 12.9%) and withdrawal (6.6% vs. 0.4%). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in sampling strategies between CHOICE and state and national surveys, the contraceptive prevalence estimates were largely similar. This information combined with the high rates of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use after enrollment by CHOICE particiants that have been previously reported by study participants may imply that cost and restricted access to LARC could be essential factors in the low rates of LARC use in the United States.
Authors: Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jennifer L Mullersman; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: John Santelli; Laura Duberstein Lindberg; Lawrence B Finer; Vaughn I Rickert; Diana Bensyl; Sam Posner; Shelly Makleff; Kathryn Kost; Susheela Singh Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: James Trussell; Anjana M Lalla; Quan V Doan; Eileen Reyes; Lionel Pinto; Joseph Gricar Journal: Contraception Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: David L Eisenberg; Gina M Secura; Tessa E Madden; Jenifer E Allsworth; Qiuhong Zhao; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-04-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jenifer E Allsworth; Gina M Secura; Qiuhong Zhao; Tessa Madden; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Anna Mageras; Ellen Brazier; Théodore Niyongabo; Gad Murenzi; Jean D'Amour Sinayobye; Adebola A Adedimeji; Christella Twizere; Elizabeth A Kelvin; Kathryn Anastos; Denis Nash; Heidi E Jones Journal: Int J STD AIDS Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 1.359