Literature DB >> 27710196

Women's Contraceptive Preference-Use Mismatch.

Katherine He1, Vanessa K Dalton2, Melissa K Zochowski3, Kelli Stidham Hall4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Family planning research has not adequately addressed women's preferences for different contraceptive methods and whether women's contraceptive experiences match their preferences.
METHODS: Data were drawn from the Women's Healthcare Experiences and Preferences Study, an Internet survey of 1,078 women aged 18-55 randomly sampled from a national probability panel. Survey items assessed women's preferences for contraceptive methods, match between methods preferred and used, and perceived reasons for mismatch. We estimated predictors of contraceptive preference with multinomial logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Among women at risk for pregnancy who responded with their preferred method (n = 363), hormonal methods (non-LARC [long-acting reversible contraception]) were the most preferred method (34%), followed by no method (23%) and LARC (18%). Sociodemographic differences in contraception method preferences were noted (p-values <0.05), generally with minority, married, and older women having higher rates of preferring less effective methods, compared to their counterparts. Thirty-six percent of women reported preference-use mismatch, with the majority preferring more effective methods than those they were using. Rates of match between preferred and usual methods were highest for LARC (76%), hormonal (non-LARC) (65%), and no method (65%). The most common reasons for mismatch were cost/insurance (41%), lack of perceived/actual need (34%), and method-specific preference concerns (19%).
CONCLUSION: While preference for effective contraception was common among this sample of women, we found substantial mismatch between preferred and usual methods, notably among women of lower socioeconomic status and women using less effective methods. Findings may have implications for patient-centered contraceptive interventions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  contraception; health service delivery; patient preference; patient-centered; reproductive health; women's health

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27710196      PMCID: PMC5512313          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2016.5807

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  32 in total

1.  Contraceptive efficacy, compliance and beyond: factors related to satisfaction with once-weekly transdermal compared with oral contraception.

Authors:  Wolfgang Urdl; Dan Apter; Alan Alperstein; Peter Koll; Siegfried Schönian; Jacques Bringer; Alan C Fisher; Michael Preik
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  2005-08-01       Impact factor: 2.435

2.  Oral contraceptive discontinuation: do side effects matter?

Authors:  Carolyn L Westhoff; Stephen Heartwell; Sharon Edwards; Mimi Zieman; Gretchen Stuart; Carrie Cwiak; Anne Davis; Tina Robilotto; Linda Cushman; Debra Kalmuss
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Characteristics of women in the United States who use long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.

Authors:  Megan L Kavanaugh; Jenna Jerman; David Hubacher; Kathryn Kost; Lawrence B Finer
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Performance measures for contraceptive care: what are we actually trying to measure?

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Helen Bellanca; Michael Policar
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2015-02-10       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Contraceptive use and discontinuation: findings from the contraceptive history, initiation, and choice study.

Authors:  Larissa R Brunner Huber; Carol J Hogue; Aryeh D Stein; Carolyn Drews; Miriam Zieman; Joyce King; Susan Schayes
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-04-21       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 6.  Does research into contraceptive method discontinuation address women's own reasons? A critical review.

Authors:  Kumiyo Inoue; Alexandra Barratt; Juliet Richters
Journal:  J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care       Date:  2015-01-20

7.  Women Saw Large Decrease In Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Contraceptives After ACA Mandate Removed Cost Sharing.

Authors:  Nora V Becker; Daniel Polsky
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  The impact of out-of-pocket costs on the use of intrauterine contraception among women with employer-sponsored insurance.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Stacie B Dusetzina; A Mark Fendrick; Nancy L Keating; Vanessa K Dalton
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Women's perceptions and reasons for choosing the pill, patch, or ring in the CHOICE study: a cross-sectional survey of contraceptive method selection after counseling.

Authors:  Christian Egarter; Brigitte Frey Tirri; Johannes Bitzer; Vyacheslav Kaminskyy; Björn J Oddens; Vera Prilepskaya; Arie Yeshaya; Maya Marintcheva-Petrova; Steven Weyers
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2013-02-28       Impact factor: 2.809

Review 10.  Women's values in contraceptive choice: a systematic review of relevant attributes included in decision aids.

Authors:  Kirk D Wyatt; Ryan T Anderson; Douglas Creedon; Victor M Montori; John Bachman; Patricia Erwin; Annie LeBlanc
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2014-02-13       Impact factor: 2.809

View more
  12 in total

1.  Agreement between Self-Reported "Ideal" and Currently Used Contraceptive Methods among Women Veterans Using the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

Authors:  Colleen P Judge-Golden; Tierney E Wolgemuth; Xinhua Zhao; Maria K Mor; Sonya Borrero
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2020-04-19

2.  Do Adolescent Women's Contraceptive Preferences Predict Method Use and Satisfaction? A Survey of Northern California Family Planning Clients.

Authors:  Amelia W Walker; Lisa Stern; Danielle Cipres; Amanda Rodriguez; Janette Alvarez; Dominika Seidman
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 5.012

3.  The State of the Science of Natural Family Planning Fifty Years after Humane Vitae: A Report from NFP Scientists' Meeting Held at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, April 4, 2018.

Authors:  Michael D Manhart; Richard J Fehring
Journal:  Linacre Q       Date:  2018-11-28

4.  Coerced Choice: Resigned Contraceptive Usership Among Individuals Affected by Reproductive Coercion.

Authors:  Kathryn E Fay; Summer Corry; Rebecca G Simmons; Jami Baayd
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2022-07-21       Impact factor: 2.891

5.  Changing Educational Differentials in Female Sterilization.

Authors:  Sarah R Hayford; Alexandra Kissling; Karen Benjamin Guzzo
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2020-05-28

6.  Barriers to post-placental intrauterine device receipt among expectant minority women.

Authors:  Lydia Furman; Shannon Pettit; Monique S Balthazar; Khalilah Williams; Mary Ann O'Riordan
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 1.752

7.  Improving Communication Messages by Using Perceptual Mapping: Family Planning Survey in East Java and West Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia.

Authors:  Sarah Handayani; Rita Damayanti; Iwan Ariawan; Fitra Yelda; Sarah Harlan; Yunita Wahyuningrum; Douglas Storey
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2021-02-26

8.  What Do We Demand? Responding to the Call for Precision and Definitional Agreement in Family Planning's "Demand" and "Need" Jargon.

Authors:  Madeleine Short Fabic
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2022-02-28

Review 9.  CE: An Evidence-Based Update on Contraception.

Authors:  Laura E Britton; Amy Alspaugh; Madelyne Z Greene; Monica R McLemore
Journal:  Am J Nurs       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.577

10.  Real-World Evidence on the Effect of Missing an Oral Contraceptive Dose: Analysis of Internet Search Engine Queries.

Authors:  Irit Hochberg; Sharon Orshalimy; Elad Yom-Tov
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.