Literature DB >> 28277358

Postabortion Contraceptive Use and Continuation When Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Is Free.

Vinita Goyal1, Caitlin Canfield, Abigail R A Aiken, Amna Dermish, Joseph E Potter.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare preference for long-acting contraception (LARC) and subsequent use, year-long continuation, and pregnancy among women after induced abortion who were and were not eligible to participate in a specialized funding program that provided LARC at no cost.
METHODS: Between October 2014 and March 2016, we conducted a prospective study of abortion patients at Planned Parenthood in Austin, Texas (located in Travis County). We compared our primary outcome of interest, postabortion LARC use, among women who were eligible for the specialized funding program (low-income, uninsured, Travis County residents) and two groups who were ineligible (low-income, uninsured, non-Travis County residents, and higher income or insured women). Secondary outcomes of interest included preabortion preference for LARC and 1-year continuation and pregnancy rates among the three groups.
RESULTS: Among 518 women, preabortion preference for LARC was high among all three groups (low-income eligible: 64% [91/143]; low-income ineligible: 44% [49/112]; and higher income 55% [146/263]). However, low-income eligible participants were more likely to receive LARC (65% [93/143] compared with 5% [6/112] and 24% [62/263], respectively, P<.05). Specifically, after adjusting for age, race-ethnicity, and education, low-income eligible participants had a 10-fold greater incidence of receiving postabortion LARC compared with low-income ineligible participants (incidence rate ratio 10.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.68-21.91). Among low-income eligible and higher income women who received postabortion LARC, 1-year continuation was 90% (95% CI 82-97%) and 86% (95% CI 76-97%), respectively. One-year pregnancy risk was higher among low-income ineligible than low-income eligible women (hazard ratio 3.28, 95% CI 1.15-9.31).
CONCLUSION: Preference for postabortion LARC was high among all three eligibility groups, yet women with access to no-cost LARC were more likely to use and continue these methods. Low-income ineligible women were far more likely to use less effective contraception and become pregnant. Specialized funding programs can play an important role in immediate postabortion contraceptive provision, particularly in settings where state funding is limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28277358      PMCID: PMC5364035          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001926

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  28 in total

1.  Comparison of contraceptive method chosen by women with and without a recent history of induced abortion.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2011-05-04       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  One-year continuation of the etonogestrel contraceptive implant in women with postabortion or interval placement.

Authors:  Alice Mark; Sarita Sonalkar; Lynn Borgatta
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Impact of long-acting reversible contraception on return for repeat abortion.

Authors:  Sally B Rose; Beverley A Lawton
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-07-13       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  A comparison of depression and anxiety symptom trajectories between women who had an abortion and women denied one.

Authors:  D G Foster; J R Steinberg; S C M Roberts; J Neuhaus; M A Biggs
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  2015-01-28       Impact factor: 7.723

5.  Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception.

Authors:  Jeffrey F Peipert; Tessa Madden; Jenifer E Allsworth; Gina M Secura
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Postabortion contraception: qualitative interviews on counseling and provision of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.

Authors:  Jessica Morse; Lori Freedman; J Joseph Speidel; Kirsten M J Thompson; Laura Stratton; Cynthia C Harper
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2012-04-24

7.  Contraceptive policies affect post-abortion provision of long-acting reversible contraception.

Authors:  Kirsten M J Thompson; J Joseph Speidel; Vicki Saporta; Norma Jo Waxman; Cynthia C Harper
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2010-09-20       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  Continuation of the etonogestrel implant in women undergoing immediate postabortion placement.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; David L Eisenberg; Qiuhong Zhao; Christina Buckel; Gina M Secura; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion.

Authors:  Suzan Goodman; Sarah K Hendlish; Matthew F Reeves; Anne Foster-Rosales
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2008-05-14       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  Immediate postabortion access to IUDs, implants and DMPA reduces repeat pregnancy within 1 year in a New York City practice.

Authors:  Aileen M Langston; Sophie L Joslin-Roher; Carolyn L Westhoff
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  7 in total

1.  Ensuring our research reflects our values: The role of family planning research in advancing reproductive autonomy.

Authors:  Christine Dehlendorf; Reiley Reed; Edith Fox; Dominika Seidman; Cara Hall; Jody Steinauer
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Modeling the impact of novel male contraceptive methods on reductions in unintended pregnancies in Nigeria, South Africa, and the United States.

Authors:  Emily Dorman; Brian Perry; Chelsea B Polis; Lisa Campo-Engelstein; Dominick Shattuck; Aaron Hamlin; Abigail Aiken; James Trussell; David Sokal
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2017-09-05       Impact factor: 3.375

3.  Contraceptive Practices, Preferences, and Barriers Among Abortion Clients in North Carolina.

Authors:  Amy G Bryant; Ilene S Speizer; Jennifer C Hodgkinson; Alison Swiatlo; Siân L Curtis; Krista Perreira
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 0.954

4.  Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2015.

Authors:  Tara C Jatlaoui; Maegan E Boutot; Michele G Mandel; Maura K Whiteman; Angeline Ti; Emily Petersen; Karen Pazol
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2018-11-23

5.  Differences in abortion rates by race-ethnicity after implementation of a restrictive Texas law.

Authors:  Vinita Goyal; Isabel H McLoughlin Brooks; Daniel A Powers
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 3.051

6.  Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2018.

Authors:  Katherine Kortsmit; Tara C Jatlaoui; Michele G Mandel; Jennifer A Reeves; Titilope Oduyebo; Emily Petersen; Maura K Whiteman
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2020-11-27

7.  Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2019.

Authors:  Katherine Kortsmit; Michele G Mandel; Jennifer A Reeves; Elizabeth Clark; H Pamela Pagano; Antoinette Nguyen; Emily E Petersen; Maura K Whiteman
Journal:  MMWR Surveill Summ       Date:  2021-11-26
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.