Literature DB >> 31838124

Familiarity and acceptability of long-acting reversible contraception and contraceptive choice.

Rachel Paul1, Bridget C Huysman1, Ragini Maddipati2, Tessa Madden3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contraceptive choice is a preference-sensitive decision that is affected by contraceptive attributes, patient experience, and reproductive history. Familiarity with and acceptability of specific contraceptive methods may influence patient decisions.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the acceptability of and previsit familiarity with long-acting reversible contraception (intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants) compared with depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral contraceptive pills in women seeking contraceptive care and to investigate the relationship between acceptability and contraceptive choice. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of a study that was designed to compare 2 contraceptive care programs conducted at 3 Midwest federally qualified health centers. After contraceptive counseling, participants completed a baseline interviewer-administered survey before the healthcare provider visit. We asked participants questions about previsit familiarity with and acceptability of the intrauterine device, implant, depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate, and oral contraceptive pills. We assessed familiarity using 2 questions: (1) Before today have you ever heard of the [method]? (2) Do you know any woman who has/has used the [method]? Acceptability was assessed for each method on a 0-10 scale, with 0 being "strongly dislike" and 10 being "strongly like." We dichotomized the scores into high acceptability (7-10) and low/moderate acceptability (0-6) for analysis. We examined differences in demographic and reproductive characteristics between women with high and low long-acting reversible contraception acceptability using the chi-square test. We used univariate and multivariable Poisson regressions to examine the relationship among participants' characteristics, method acceptability, and method choice. We adjusted for any covariate that changed the effect size of acceptability by >10%.
RESULTS: There were 1007 women included in the analysis: 900 women (89%) reported that they had heard of the intrauterine device, and 592 women (59%) knew someone who had used the intrauterine device. Eight hundred sixty-five (86%) women had heard of the implant, and 636 women (63%) knew someone who had used it. Knowledge of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral contraceptive pills was high (>98% for both). Five hundred seventy-six women (57%) found 1 or both long-acting reversible contraception methods highly acceptable. Women with high long-acting reversible contraception acceptability were more likely to be adolescents or aged 30-45 years, white, Hispanic, married/cohabitating, and uninsured and were less likely to desire a child in the next 1-3 years. They were more likely to desire a hormonal intrauterine device (90.5% vs 9.5%), copper intrauterine device (81.1% vs 18.9%), or implant (89.8% vs 10.2%) compared with women with low acceptability (P<.001). In adjusted analyses, women with high acceptability of an intrauterine device were more likely to desire an intrauterine device (adjusted relative risk, 9.62; 95% confidence interval, 6.42-14.42). Women with high acceptability of an implant were also more likely to desire one (adjusted relative risk, 8.74; 95% confidence interval, 6.17-12.38). Women were more likely to desire an intrauterine device or an implant if they knew someone who used the method. Previous use of the method and demographic factors were not associated with method choice.
CONCLUSION: Previsit familiarity with intrauterine devices and implants was high in our federally qualified health centers population, although not as high as depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate and oral contraceptive pills. In adjusted analyses, women who found an intrauterine device or implant highly acceptable and who knew someone who had used the method were more likely to choose those respective methods at the end of their visit.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acceptability; contraceptive counseling; implant; intrauterine device; long-acting reversible contraception

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31838124      PMCID: PMC7781163          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1266

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  19 in total

1.  Comparison of unintended pregnancy at 12 months between two contraceptive care programs; a controlled time-trend design.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; Rachel Paul; Ragini Maddipati; Christina Buckel; Melody Goodman; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 3.375

2.  Factors Associated With Contraceptive Method Choice and Initiation in Adolescents and Young Women.

Authors:  Rebecca Cohen; Jeanelle Sheeder; Meghan Kane; Stephanie B Teal
Journal:  J Adolesc Health       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 5.012

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

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

4.  The role of contraceptive attributes in women's contraceptive decision making.

Authors:  Tessa Madden; Gina M Secura; Robert F Nease; Mary C Politi; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-01-30       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Adolescent and Young Women's Contraceptive Decision-Making Processes: Choosing "The Best Method for Her".

Authors:  Juliana Melo; Marissa Peters; Stephanie Teal; Maryam Guiahi
Journal:  J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 1.814

6.  Contraceptive features preferred by women at high risk of unintended pregnancy.

Authors:  Lauren N Lessard; Deborah Karasek; Sandi Ma; Philip Darney; Julianna Deardorff; Maureen Lahiff; Dan Grossman; Diana Greene Foster
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2012-07-19

7.  Young Women's Contraceptive Decision Making: Do Preferences for Contraceptive Attributes Align with Method Choice?

Authors:  Cassondra Marshall; Sylvia Guendelman; Jane Mauldon; Amani Nuru-Jeter
Journal:  Perspect Sex Reprod Health       Date:  2016-08-04

8.  What matters most? The content and concordance of patients' and providers' information priorities for contraceptive decision making.

Authors:  Kyla Z Donnelly; Tina C Foster; Rachel Thompson
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-04-30       Impact factor: 3.375

9.  Rationale and enrollment results for a partially randomized patient preference trial to compare continuation rates of short-acting and long-acting reversible contraception.

Authors:  David Hubacher; Hannah Spector; Charles Monteith; Pai-Lien Chen; Catherine Hart
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2014-11-15       Impact factor: 3.375

10.  Effect of staff training and cost support on provision of long-acting reversible contraception in community health centers.

Authors:  Christina Buckel; Ragini Maddipati; Melody Goodman; Jeffrey F Peipert; Tessa Madden
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 3.375

View more
  7 in total

1.  Results of the National Contraception Survey Conducted by Sociedad Española de Contracepción (2020).

Authors:  Fatima Leon-Larios; José Gutiérrez Ales; María José Puente Martínez; Marta Correa Rancel; Isabel Lahoz Pascual; Isabel Silva Reus; José Cruz Quílez Conde
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-29       Impact factor: 4.964

2.  Addressing fluidity in contraceptive decision-making: a key component of patient-centered contraceptive counseling.

Authors:  Madeline Thornton; Mustafa Steven Ascha; Kavita Shah Arora
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 10.693

3.  Measuring the Sexual Acceptability of Contraception: Psychometric Examination and Development of a Valid and Reliable Prospective Instrument.

Authors:  Jessica N Sanders; Jacob Kean; Chong Zhang; Angela P Presson; Bethany G Everett; David K Turok; Jenny A Higgins
Journal:  J Sex Med       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 3.937

4.  Patient and counselor satisfaction with structured contraceptive counseling by health center staff in federally qualified health centers.

Authors:  Bridget C Huysman; Rachel Paul; Adriana Nigaglioni Rivera; Elana Tal; Ragini Maddipati; Tessa Madden
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 3.375

5.  Preference for Contraceptive Implant Among Women 18-44 years old.

Authors:  Joana E Matos; Bridget L Balkaran; Jillian Rooney; Simone Crespi
Journal:  Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle)       Date:  2021-12-15

6.  Values and preferences for contraception: A global systematic review.

Authors:  Ping Teresa Yeh; Hunied Kautsar; Caitlin E Kennedy; Mary E Gaffield
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2022-05-04       Impact factor: 3.051

7.  Barriers for multiparous women to using long-term contraceptive methods in Southeast Asia: case study in Philippines and Indonesia.

Authors:  Agung Dwi Laksono; Nikmatur Rohmah; Hario Megatsari
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 4.135

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.