Lori M Gawron1, Rebecca G Simmons2, Jessica N Sanders3, Kyl Myers4, Adi V Gundlapalli5, David K Turok6. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine. Electronic address: lori.gawron@hsc.utah.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine. Electronic address: rebecca.simmons@hsc.utah.edu. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine. Electronic address: jessica.sanders@hsc.utah.edu. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine. Electronic address: kyl.myers@hsc.utah.edu. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine and VA Salt Lake City Health Care System. Electronic address: adi.gundlapalli@hsc.utah.edu. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine. Electronic address: david.turok@hsc.utah.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the sociodemographic characteristics of participants in a contraceptive initiative by housing security and determine the association between housing insecurity on contraceptive method selection before and after the removal of cost. STUDY DESIGN: This cross-sectional assessment includes 4,327 reproductive-aged participants in the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative who sought new contraceptive services and reported housing status at enrollment. HER Salt Lake prospectively explored the impact of improved contraceptive access on socioeconomic outcomes in Salt Lake County (USA). For six months (September 2015-March 2016) we collected control data, which included clinic standard-of-care cost-sharing. The intervention started March 2016, and provided no-cost contraception services and unlimited opportunities for method switching over the subsequent three years. RESULTS: There were 964 (22%) housing-insecure participants. Compared to those with stable housing, housing-insecure individuals more commonly identified as a sexual minority, received public assistance and lacked health insurance. Housing-insecure women preferentially selected long-acting reversible contraception during the control period (aOR 1.60; 95%CI 1.01-2.56), but method selection equalized across housing status during the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: When cost is not a barrier, all women desire a comprehensive selection of contraceptive methods, regardless of housing security. Contraceptive clients in this vulnerable population need interventions which address access barriers to all methods to support reproductive planning. IMPLICATIONS: Unintended pregnancy during housing insecurity may result in homelessness. This study found housing-insecure women desire access to all contraceptive methods, not just long acting reversible contraception. Integration of comprehensive family planning initiatives into efforts to address homelessness is essential to support this vulnerable population in their reproductive planning. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the sociodemographic characteristics of participants in a contraceptive initiative by housing security and determine the association between housing insecurity on contraceptive method selection before and after the removal of cost. STUDY DESIGN: This cross-sectional assessment includes 4,327 reproductive-aged participants in the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative who sought new contraceptive services and reported housing status at enrollment. HER Salt Lake prospectively explored the impact of improved contraceptive access on socioeconomic outcomes in Salt Lake County (USA). For six months (September 2015-March 2016) we collected control data, which included clinic standard-of-care cost-sharing. The intervention started March 2016, and provided no-cost contraception services and unlimited opportunities for method switching over the subsequent three years. RESULTS: There were 964 (22%) housing-insecure participants. Compared to those with stable housing, housing-insecure individuals more commonly identified as a sexual minority, received public assistance and lacked health insurance. Housing-insecure women preferentially selected long-acting reversible contraception during the control period (aOR 1.60; 95%CI 1.01-2.56), but method selection equalized across housing status during the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: When cost is not a barrier, all women desire a comprehensive selection of contraceptive methods, regardless of housing security. Contraceptive clients in this vulnerable population need interventions which address access barriers to all methods to support reproductive planning. IMPLICATIONS: Unintended pregnancy during housing insecurity may result in homelessness. This study found housing-insecure women desire access to all contraceptive methods, not just long acting reversible contraception. Integration of comprehensive family planning initiatives into efforts to address homelessness is essential to support this vulnerable population in their reproductive planning. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Contraception; Family planning; Homelessness; Reproductive health
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: Jessica N Sanders; Kyl Myers; Lori M Gawron; Rebecca G Simmons; David K Turok Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jennifer L Mullersman; Jeffrey F Peipert Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Robert B Hood; Abigail N Turner; Mikaela Smith; Payal Chakraborty; Shibani Chettri; Danielle Bessett; Alison H Norris; Maria F Gallo Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2022-09-17