OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether more psychological distress before an abortion is associated with the effectiveness of contraception selected (low, moderate, or high effectiveness) at an abortion clinic visit. METHOD: Using data from 253 women attending an urban abortion clinic that primarily serves low-income women, we tested the association between pre-abortion psychological distress and the effectiveness level of post-abortion contraceptive choice. Based on typical use failure rates, we classified effectiveness of contraceptive choice into three levels-low, moderate, and high effectiveness. We measured psychological distress with four validated measures of depressive, anxious, and stress symptoms, and negative affect, as well as with a global measure comprising these four measures. We used multivariable ordinal logistic regression to measure the association of each psychological distress measure with post-abortion contraceptive method effectiveness level, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, pregnancy history, trimester of abortion, and importance of avoiding pregnancy in the next year. RESULTS: We found that compared to women experiencing less stress symptoms, negative affect and global psychological distress, women experiencing more stress symptoms [AOR=1.028, 95% CI: 1.001-1.050], negative affect [AOR=1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09] and global psychological distress [AOR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.09-1.95] were more likely to choose more effective versus less effective methods, p<.05, in adjusted models. Using dichotomous psychological measures we found similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Women experiencing more psychological distress before an abortion selected more effective contraceptive methods after their abortion. Future research should examine whether this distress is associated with subsequent contraceptive use or continuation. IMPLICATIONS: The current study suggests that contraceptive providers should not assume that women experiencing more psychological distress prefer to use less effective contraceptive methods.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether more psychological distress before an abortion is associated with the effectiveness of contraception selected (low, moderate, or high effectiveness) at an abortion clinic visit. METHOD: Using data from 253 women attending an urban abortion clinic that primarily serves low-income women, we tested the association between pre-abortion psychological distress and the effectiveness level of post-abortion contraceptive choice. Based on typical use failure rates, we classified effectiveness of contraceptive choice into three levels-low, moderate, and high effectiveness. We measured psychological distress with four validated measures of depressive, anxious, and stress symptoms, and negative affect, as well as with a global measure comprising these four measures. We used multivariable ordinal logistic regression to measure the association of each psychological distress measure with post-abortion contraceptive method effectiveness level, adjusting for sociodemographic factors, pregnancy history, trimester of abortion, and importance of avoiding pregnancy in the next year. RESULTS: We found that compared to women experiencing less stress symptoms, negative affect and global psychological distress, women experiencing more stress symptoms [AOR=1.028, 95% CI: 1.001-1.050], negative affect [AOR=1.05, 95% CI: 1.01-1.09] and global psychological distress [AOR=1.46, 95% CI: 1.09-1.95] were more likely to choose more effective versus less effective methods, p<.05, in adjusted models. Using dichotomous psychological measures we found similar results. CONCLUSIONS:Women experiencing more psychological distress before an abortion selected more effective contraceptive methods after their abortion. Future research should examine whether this distress is associated with subsequent contraceptive use or continuation. IMPLICATIONS: The current study suggests that contraceptive providers should not assume that women experiencing more psychological distress prefer to use less effective contraceptive methods.
Authors: Sherry L Farr; Kathryn M Curtis; Cheryl L Robbins; Lauren B Zapata; Patricia M Dietz Journal: Contraception Date: 2010-08-30 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Julia R Steinberg; Nancy E Adler; Kirsten M Thompson; Carolyn Westhoff; Cynthia C Harper Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Laura B Drew; Mona Mittal; Marie E Thoma; Cynthia C Harper; Julia R Steinberg Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 2.681