OBJECTIVE: To examine contraceptive use among women with selected medical conditions. METHODS: We used a nationwide health care claims database to identify women aged 15-44 years continuously enrolled in private insurance during 2004-2011 with and without selected medical conditions. We assessed current permanent and reversible prescription contraceptive use during October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011, with diagnosis, procedure, and pharmacy codes and calculated prevalence by age and condition. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate odds of female sterilization or reversible prescription methods compared with neither. Among users of reversible methods, we used logistic regression to calculate odds of using long-acting reversible contraceptives compared with shorter acting methods. RESULTS: A low proportion of women with medical conditions were using sterilization or reversible prescription methods (45% and 30% of women aged 15-34 and 35-44 years, respectively), and this proportion was consistently lower among the older age group across all medical conditions. Across both age groups, sterilization and long-acting reversible contraceptives were used less frequently than shorter acting methods (injectable, pill, patch, or ring). The odds of sterilization were higher among women with any compared with no condition for women aged 15-34 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5-5.3) and 35-44 years (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). Among women using reversible prescription methods, the odds of using long-acting reversible contraceptives were increased among those with any compared with no condition for women aged 15-34 years (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 2.1-2.5) and 35-44 years (OR 1.1, 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: Despite the potential for serious maternal and fetal pregnancy-associated risks, contraceptive use was not optimal among women with medical conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
OBJECTIVE: To examine contraceptive use among women with selected medical conditions. METHODS: We used a nationwide health care claims database to identify women aged 15-44 years continuously enrolled in private insurance during 2004-2011 with and without selected medical conditions. We assessed current permanent and reversible prescription contraceptive use during October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011, with diagnosis, procedure, and pharmacy codes and calculated prevalence by age and condition. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate odds of female sterilization or reversible prescription methods compared with neither. Among users of reversible methods, we used logistic regression to calculate odds of using long-acting reversible contraceptives compared with shorter acting methods. RESULTS: A low proportion of women with medical conditions were using sterilization or reversible prescription methods (45% and 30% of women aged 15-34 and 35-44 years, respectively), and this proportion was consistently lower among the older age group across all medical conditions. Across both age groups, sterilization and long-acting reversible contraceptives were used less frequently than shorter acting methods (injectable, pill, patch, or ring). The odds of sterilization were higher among women with any compared with no condition for women aged 15-34 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5-5.3) and 35-44 years (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). Among women using reversible prescription methods, the odds of using long-acting reversible contraceptives were increased among those with any compared with no condition for women aged 15-34 years (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 2.1-2.5) and 35-44 years (OR 1.1, 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). CONCLUSION: Despite the potential for serious maternal and fetal pregnancy-associated risks, contraceptive use was not optimal among women with medical conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Lori M Gawron; Jessica N Sanders; Katherine Sward; Azadeh E Poursaid; Rebecca Simmons; David K Turok Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kayla N Anderson; Naomi K Tepper; Karrie Downing; Elizabeth C Ailes; Ginnie Abarbanell; Sherry L Farr Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Laura E Britton; Jon M Hussey; Diane C Berry; Jamie L Crandell; Jada L Brooks; Amy G Bryant Journal: J Midwifery Womens Health Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Lisa B Haddad; Michael Monsour; Naomi K Tepper; Maura K Whiteman; Athena P Kourtis; Denise J Jamieson Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jessica N Williams; Chang Xu; Karen H Costenbader; Bonnie L Bermas; Lydia E Pace; Candace H Feldman Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2021-09-02 Impact factor: 5.178