Literature DB >> 21651706

Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level.

Lawrence B Finer1, Kathryn Kost.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Unintended pregnancy is a key reproductive health indicator, but rates have never been calculated for all 50 states.
METHODS: State-level estimates of unintended pregnancy rates in 2006 were calculated using data from several sources. The proportion of births resulting from unintended pregnancies was obtained from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System and similar state surveys, and the intention status of pregnancies ending in abortion from a national survey of abortion patients. These proportions were applied to birth and abortion counts for each state, and fetal losses were estimated. Rates of unintended pregnancy were obtained by dividing relevant figures by the number of women aged 15-44 in each state. Six states and the District of Columbia had no appropriate survey data; their rates were predicted using multivariate linear regression.
RESULTS: In 2006, the median state unintended pregnancy rate was 51 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Most rates fell within a range of 40-65 unintended pregnancies per 1,000 women. The highest rate was in Mississippi (69); the lowest rate was in New Hampshire (36). Rates were generally highest in the South and Southwest, and in states with large urban populations. In 29 states and the District of Columbia, more than half of pregnancies were unintended; in nine, a consistent upward trend in unintended pregnancy rates between 2002 and 2006 was apparent; no state had a consistent decline.
CONCLUSIONS: These rates provide benchmarks for measuring the impact on unintended pregnancy of state policies and practices, such as those governing sex education and the funding of contraceptive services.
Copyright © 2011 by the Guttmacher Institute.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21651706     DOI: 10.1363/4307811

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health        ISSN: 1538-6341


  25 in total

1.  Unintended birth among Hispanic women in Texas: a descriptive analysis.

Authors:  Denise Vasquez; Jill A McDonald; Nuria Homedes; Louis D Brown
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2015-06

2.  Social Norms and Stigma Regarding Unintended Pregnancy and Pregnancy Decisions: A Qualitative Study of Young Women in Alabama.

Authors:  Whitney Smith; Janet M Turan; Kari White; Kristi L Stringer; Anna Helova; Tina Simpson; Kate Cockrill
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2016-05-11

3.  Availability of over-the-counter emergency contraception in 2 disparate New York City neighborhoods.

Authors:  Katherine Legare; Salina Bakshi; Salomeh Keyhani; Elizabeth A Howell
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Support Desired by Women Following Termination of Pregnancy for a Fetal Anomaly.

Authors:  Aarti Ramdaney; Syed S Hashmi; Manju Monga; Rebecca Carter; Jennifer Czerwinski
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Class III obesity and unwanted pregnancy among women with live births in New York City, 2004-2007.

Authors:  Samantha Garbers; Mary Ann Chiasson
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2013-10

Review 6.  Unintended pregnancy and contraception among active-duty servicewomen and veterans.

Authors:  Vinita Goyal; Sonya Borrero; Eleanor Bimla Schwarz
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-12-01       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception.

Authors:  Jen Sothornwit; Yuthapong Werawatakul; Srinaree Kaewrudee; Pisake Lumbiganon; Malinee Laopaiboon
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-04-22

8.  Extending contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act saves public funds.

Authors:  Suzanne Burlone; Alison B Edelman; Aaron B Caughey; James Trussell; Stella Dantas; Maria I Rodriguez
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-07-25       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  Contraceptive Method Choice Among Young Adults: Influence of Individual and Relationship Factors.

Authors:  S Marie Harvey; Lisa P Oakley; Isaac Washburn; Christopher R Agnew
Journal:  J Sex Res       Date:  2018-01-26

10.  Variation in postpartum contraceptive method use: results from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS).

Authors:  Kari White; Joseph E Potter; Kristine Hopkins; Daniel Grossman
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-10-22       Impact factor: 3.375

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.