Sunitha C Suresh1, Lauren Questell2, Carolyn Sufrin3. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address: sunitha.suresh@uchospitals.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Department of Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The juvenile justice system houses adolescents with unique and unmet reproductive needs, including family planning. The purpose of this study was to identify access to contraceptive counseling and methods for young women in the juvenile justice system. DESIGN: We administered a cross-sectional survey that was used to examine services related to reproductive health care, including contraceptive counseling, and ability to initiate or continue contraceptive methods in custody. SETTING: Juvenile justice systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: State-level health care administrators in juvenile justice systems. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We analyzed responses to determine the ability of young women in custody to continue or initiate specific contraceptive methods, in addition to other measures of reproductive health access. RESULTS: Twenty-one respondents representing systems in 20 US states were included in analysis. All participating sites provided contraceptive counseling and all allowed at least 1 form of preincarceration contraception to be continued. Eighty-one percent (17/21) of systems enabled young women to initiate contraception while in custody, with the most common method available on-site being birth control pills. Twenty percent (4/20) of sites provided long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. CONCLUSION: This study shows that it is feasible to provide contraception in this setting. However, there exists considerable variability in availability of methods across the United States. Continued work is needed in increasing access to contraception and standardization of care in the juvenile justice system.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The juvenile justice system houses adolescents with unique and unmet reproductive needs, including family planning. The purpose of this study was to identify access to contraceptive counseling and methods for young women in the juvenile justice system. DESIGN: We administered a cross-sectional survey that was used to examine services related to reproductive health care, including contraceptive counseling, and ability to initiate or continue contraceptive methods in custody. SETTING: Juvenile justice systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: State-level health care administrators in juvenile justice systems. INTERVENTIONS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We analyzed responses to determine the ability of young women in custody to continue or initiate specific contraceptive methods, in addition to other measures of reproductive health access. RESULTS: Twenty-one respondents representing systems in 20 US states were included in analysis. All participating sites provided contraceptive counseling and all allowed at least 1 form of preincarceration contraception to be continued. Eighty-one percent (17/21) of systems enabled young women to initiate contraception while in custody, with the most common method available on-site being birth control pills. Twenty percent (4/20) of sites provided long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. CONCLUSION: This study shows that it is feasible to provide contraception in this setting. However, there exists considerable variability in availability of methods across the United States. Continued work is needed in increasing access to contraception and standardization of care in the juvenile justice system.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jennifer G Clarke; Cynthia Rosengard; Jennifer S Rose; Megan R Hebert; Jeffrey Peipert; Michael D Stein Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 9.308