Isabel Beshar1, Jodi So2, Meena Chelvakumar3, Erica P Cahill4, Kate A Shaw4, Jonathan G Shaw3. 1. Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. Electronic address: ibeshar@stanford.edu. 2. Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. 3. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States. 4. Division of Family Planning Services & Research, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Permanent contraception has historically been more prevalent among non-White women with lower education and income. Given increasing popularity of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), we examine changing sociodemographic patterns of permanent contraception and LARC. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a descriptive analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) from 2006 to 2017, with multivariable analyses of the 2006 to 2010 and 2015 to 2017 cohorts. Using multinomial logistic regression, we investigate predictors of contraceptive category (permanent contraception vs LARC, lower-efficacy contraception vs LARC) in reproductive-aged women. RESULTS: Total 8161 respondents were included in 2 distinct but analogous regression analyses: (1) the most recent survey cohort, 2015 to 2017 and (2) the cohort a decade prior, 2006 to 2010. Over this period, the prevalence of LARC increased nearly 3-fold (6.2%-16.7%), while permanent contraception use trended downwards (22%-18.6%). Yet, in adjusted models, we observed little change in the sociodemographic predictors of permanent contraception: from the early to recent cohort, use of permanent contraception (vs LARC) remained less likely among college graduates (multinomial odds ratio (OR) 0.45 [95% confidence interval 0.21, 0.97]) and Hispanic women (OR 0.41 [0.21, 0.82]). In addition, high income (>$74,999) and metropolitan residence came to predict less use (OR 0.33 [0.13, 0.84] and 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]). Multiparity, advanced age (over ≥35), and marital status remained strong predictors of permanent contraception. CONCLUSION: Although use of LARC nearly equals that of permanent contraception in the most recent NSFG survey, socioeconomic differences persist. Continued effort is needed to detect and address structural barriers to accessing the most effective forms of contraception for women. IMPLICATIONS: Comparing 2006-2010 to 2015-2017, reliance on female permanent contraception decreased while LARC use increased, making prevalence more similar. However, significant socioeconomic differences persist in who chooses permanent contraception, with urban, educated, higher income women more likely to use LARC. Ongoing efforts are needed to understand and reduce economic barriers to LARC.
OBJECTIVE: Permanent contraception has historically been more prevalent among non-White women with lower education and income. Given increasing popularity of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), we examine changing sociodemographic patterns of permanent contraception and LARC. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a descriptive analysis of the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) from 2006 to 2017, with multivariable analyses of the 2006 to 2010 and 2015 to 2017 cohorts. Using multinomial logistic regression, we investigate predictors of contraceptive category (permanent contraception vs LARC, lower-efficacy contraception vs LARC) in reproductive-aged women. RESULTS: Total 8161 respondents were included in 2 distinct but analogous regression analyses: (1) the most recent survey cohort, 2015 to 2017 and (2) the cohort a decade prior, 2006 to 2010. Over this period, the prevalence of LARC increased nearly 3-fold (6.2%-16.7%), while permanent contraception use trended downwards (22%-18.6%). Yet, in adjusted models, we observed little change in the sociodemographic predictors of permanent contraception: from the early to recent cohort, use of permanent contraception (vs LARC) remained less likely among college graduates (multinomial odds ratio (OR) 0.45 [95% confidence interval 0.21, 0.97]) and Hispanic women (OR 0.41 [0.21, 0.82]). In addition, high income (>$74,999) and metropolitan residence came to predict less use (OR 0.33 [0.13, 0.84] and 0.47 [0.23, 0.97]). Multiparity, advanced age (over ≥35), and marital status remained strong predictors of permanent contraception. CONCLUSION: Although use of LARC nearly equals that of permanent contraception in the most recent NSFG survey, socioeconomic differences persist. Continued effort is needed to detect and address structural barriers to accessing the most effective forms of contraception for women. IMPLICATIONS: Comparing 2006-2010 to 2015-2017, reliance on female permanent contraception decreased while LARC use increased, making prevalence more similar. However, significant socioeconomic differences persist in who chooses permanent contraception, with urban, educated, higher income women more likely to use LARC. Ongoing efforts are needed to understand and reduce economic barriers to LARC.
Authors: Kathryn E Storck; Lori M Gawron; Jessica N Sanders; Nicolle Wiaderny; David K Turok Journal: Contraception Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.051