Renee Monique Haynes1, Sheree L Boulet2, Michael H Fox3, Dianna D Carroll4, Elizabeth Courtney-Long3, Lee Warner5. 1. Satcher Health Leadership Institute, Morehouse School of Medicine, 720 Westview Drive, SW, Atlanta, GA 30310. Electronic address: reneemhaynes@yahoo.com. 2. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, MS F-74, Atlanta, GA 30341. Electronic address: sbu1@cdc.gov. 3. Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mailstop E-88, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717. 4. Division of Human Development and Disability, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, Mailstop E-88, Atlanta, GA 30341-3717; Commissioned Corps, U.S. Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA. 5. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Hwy, NE, MS F-74, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of contraceptive use at last intercourse among women with physical or cognitive disabilities compared to women without disabilities. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed responses to 12 reproductive health questions added by seven states to their 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaire. Using responses from female respondents 18-50 years of age, we performed multinomial regression to calculate estimates of contraceptive use among women at risk for unintended pregnancy by disability status and type, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, health insurance status, and parity. RESULTS: Women with disabilities had similar rates of sexual activity as women without disabilities (90.0% vs. 90.6%, p=.76). Of 5995 reproductive-aged women at risk for unintended pregnancy, 1025 (17.1%) reported one or more disabilities. Contraceptive use at last intercourse was reported by 744 (70.1%) of women with disabilities compared with 3805 (74.3%) of those without disabilities (p=.22). Among women using contraception, women with disabilities used male or female permanent contraception more often than women without disabilities (333 [29.6%] versus 1337 [23.1%], p<.05). Moderately effective contraceptive (injection, oral contraceptive, patch, or ring) use occurred less frequently among women with cognitive (13.1%, n=89) or independent living (13.9%, n=40) disabilities compared to women without disabilities (22.2%, n=946, p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of sexual activity and contraceptive use was similar for women with and without physical or cognitive disabilities. Method use at last intercourse varied based on presence and type of disability, especially for use of permanent contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Although women with disabilities were sexually active and used contraception at similar rates as women without disabilities, contraception use varied by disability type, suggesting the importance of this factor in reproductive health decision-making among patients and providers, and the value of further research to identify reasons why this occurs. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of contraceptive use at last intercourse among women with physical or cognitive disabilities compared to women without disabilities. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed responses to 12 reproductive health questions added by seven states to their 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System questionnaire. Using responses from female respondents 18-50 years of age, we performed multinomial regression to calculate estimates of contraceptive use among women at risk for unintended pregnancy by disability status and type, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, health insurance status, and parity. RESULTS:Women with disabilities had similar rates of sexual activity as women without disabilities (90.0% vs. 90.6%, p=.76). Of 5995 reproductive-aged women at risk for unintended pregnancy, 1025 (17.1%) reported one or more disabilities. Contraceptive use at last intercourse was reported by 744 (70.1%) of women with disabilities compared with 3805 (74.3%) of those without disabilities (p=.22). Among women using contraception, women with disabilities used male or female permanent contraception more often than women without disabilities (333 [29.6%] versus 1337 [23.1%], p<.05). Moderately effective contraceptive (injection, oral contraceptive, patch, or ring) use occurred less frequently among women with cognitive (13.1%, n=89) or independent living (13.9%, n=40) disabilities compared to women without disabilities (22.2%, n=946, p<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence of sexual activity and contraceptive use was similar for women with and without physical or cognitive disabilities. Method use at last intercourse varied based on presence and type of disability, especially for use of permanent contraception. IMPLICATIONS: Although women with disabilities were sexually active and used contraception at similar rates as women without disabilities, contraception use varied by disability type, suggesting the importance of this factor in reproductive health decision-making among patients and providers, and the value of further research to identify reasons why this occurs. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Robyn M Powell; Monika Mitra; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Linda M Long-Bellil; Lauren D Smith; Lisa I Iezzoni Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2017-02-16
Authors: Monika Mitra; Karen M Clements; Jianying Zhang; Lisa I Iezzoni; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Linda M Long-Bellil Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sheree L Boulet; Lee Warner; Alys Adamski; Ruben A Smith; Kim Burley; Violanda Grigorescu Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Monika Mitra; Linda M Long-Bellil; Lisa I Iezzoni; Suzanne C Smeltzer; Lauren D Smith Journal: Disabil Health J Date: 2016-01-02 Impact factor: 2.554