Abigail Iseyemi1, Qiuhong Zhao, Colleen McNicholas, Jeffrey F Peipert. 1. Meharry Medical College, Nashville, Tennessee; the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of low socioeconomic status as an independent risk factor for unintended pregnancy. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Contraceptive CHOICE project. Between 2007 and 2011, 9,256 participants were recruited and followed for up to 3 years. The primary outcome of interest was unintended pregnancy; the primary exposure variable was low socioeconomic status, defined as self-report of either receiving public assistance or having difficulty paying for basic necessities. Four contraceptive groups were evaluated: 1) long-acting reversible contraceptive method (hormonal or copper intrauterine device or subdermal implant); 2) depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection; 3) oral contraceptive pills, a transdermal patch, or a vaginal ring; or 4) other or no method. Confounders were adjusted for in the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the effect of socioeconomic status on risk of unintended pregnancy. RESULTS: Participants with low socioeconomic status experienced 515 unintended pregnancies during 14,001 women-years of follow-up (3.68/100 women-years; 95% CI 3.37-4.01) compared with 200 unintended pregnancies during 10,296 women-years (1.94/100 women-years; 95% CI 1.68-2.23) among participants without low socioeconomic status. Women with low socioeconomic status were more likely to have an unintended pregnancy (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, 95% CI 1.5-2.2). After adjusting for age, education level, insurance status, and history of unintended pregnancy, low socioeconomic status was associated with an increased risk of unintended pregnancy (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7). CONCLUSION: Despite the removal of cost barriers, low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher incidence of unintended pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of low socioeconomic status as an independent risk factor for unintended pregnancy. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from the Contraceptive CHOICE project. Between 2007 and 2011, 9,256 participants were recruited and followed for up to 3 years. The primary outcome of interest was unintended pregnancy; the primary exposure variable was low socioeconomic status, defined as self-report of either receiving public assistance or having difficulty paying for basic necessities. Four contraceptive groups were evaluated: 1) long-acting reversible contraceptive method (hormonal or copper intrauterine device or subdermal implant); 2) depot medroxyprogesterone acetate injection; 3) oral contraceptive pills, a transdermal patch, or a vaginal ring; or 4) other or no method. Confounders were adjusted for in the multivariable Cox proportional hazard model to estimate the effect of socioeconomic status on risk of unintended pregnancy. RESULTS:Participants with low socioeconomic status experienced 515 unintended pregnancies during 14,001 women-years of follow-up (3.68/100 women-years; 95% CI 3.37-4.01) compared with 200 unintended pregnancies during 10,296 women-years (1.94/100 women-years; 95% CI 1.68-2.23) among participants without low socioeconomic status. Women with low socioeconomic status were more likely to have an unintended pregnancy (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.8, 95% CI 1.5-2.2). After adjusting for age, education level, insurance status, and history of unintended pregnancy, low socioeconomic status was associated with an increased risk of unintended pregnancy (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7). CONCLUSION: Despite the removal of cost barriers, low socioeconomic status is associated with a higher incidence of unintended pregnancy.
Authors: Clair A Enthoven; Hanan El Marroun; M Elisabeth Koopman-Verhoeff; Wilma Jansen; Mijke P Lambregtse-van den Berg; Frouke Sondeijker; Manon H J Hillegers; Hilmar H Bijma; Pauline W Jansen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-10-24 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Sayuli Bhide; Mustafa Ascha; Barbara Wilkinson; Emily Verbus; Mary Montague; Jane Morris; Kavita Shah Arora Journal: Contraception Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Maayan Leroy-Melamed; Qiuhong Zhao; Michael A Belmonte; Johanna Archer; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Emily Verbus; Mustafa Ascha; Barbara Wilkinson; Mary Montague; Jane Morris; Brian M Mercer; Kavita Shah Arora Journal: Open Access J Contracept Date: 2019-12-19