Hendrée E Jones1, Caitlin E Martin2, Kimberly R Andringa3, Rachel Middlesteadt Ellerson3, Elisabeth Johnson3, Essence Hairston3, Kevin E O' Grady4. 1. UNC Horizons and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27510, United States; Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21224 United States. Electronic address: Hendree_Jones@med.unc.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology & Institute of Drug and Alcohol Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298, United States. 3. UNC Horizons and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27510, United States. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD 20742, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancies are prevalent among women with opioid use disorder (OUD). The Sex and Female Empowerment (SAFE) project developed a social-cognitive, theory-driven intervention to increase acceptance of and adherence to contraceptive practices among women receiving medication for OUD (MOUD). This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of two SAFE interventions (Face-to-face and Computer-adapted) compared to usual care as well as their efficacy to improve contraception utilization. METHODS: This pilot randomized trial enrolled 90 heterosexual, non-pregnant, reproductive-age women receiving MOUD. Participants were randomized into either a: SAFE Face-to-face intervention, SAFE Computer-adapted intervention, or usual care (UC) condition (n = 30 each) and followed for 6 months. Outcome measures included intervention completion, intervention satisfaction, attendance at a contraception consultation appointment, and long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method receipt. A generalized linear model was used for inferential testing and to estimate least squares means (predicted probabilities for binary outcomes) and their standard errors. RESULTS: Compared to the UC condition, both the SAFE Face-to-face and the SAFE Computer-adapted intervention had higher intervention completion [Means (Standard Errors) = 0.97 (.03) and 0.97 (.03), respectively, vs. 0.53 (.09); ps<.001], higher intervention satisfaction [Ms (SEs) = 3.7 (.11) and 3.8 (.11), respectively, vs. 3.1 (.11); ps<0.001), higher contraception consultation visit attendance [Ms(SEs) = 0.80 (.07) and 0.73 (.08) vs. 0.33 (.09); p < .001], and greater LARC receipt [Ms(SEs) = 0.77 (.08) and 0.73 (.08) vs. 0.23 (.08); p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SAFE appears feasible and efficacious for supporting women in contraception decision-making. Integrating SAFE into women's comprehensive OUD treatment services holds promise to increase contraceptive decision-making and initiation of a chosen method.
BACKGROUND: Unintended pregnancies are prevalent among women with opioid use disorder (OUD). The Sex and Female Empowerment (SAFE) project developed a social-cognitive, theory-driven intervention to increase acceptance of and adherence to contraceptive practices among women receiving medication for OUD (MOUD). This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of two SAFE interventions (Face-to-face and Computer-adapted) compared to usual care as well as their efficacy to improve contraception utilization. METHODS: This pilot randomized trial enrolled 90 heterosexual, non-pregnant, reproductive-age women receiving MOUD. Participants were randomized into either a: SAFE Face-to-face intervention, SAFE Computer-adapted intervention, or usual care (UC) condition (n = 30 each) and followed for 6 months. Outcome measures included intervention completion, intervention satisfaction, attendance at a contraception consultation appointment, and long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) method receipt. A generalized linear model was used for inferential testing and to estimate least squares means (predicted probabilities for binary outcomes) and their standard errors. RESULTS: Compared to the UC condition, both the SAFE Face-to-face and the SAFE Computer-adapted intervention had higher intervention completion [Means (Standard Errors) = 0.97 (.03) and 0.97 (.03), respectively, vs. 0.53 (.09); ps<.001], higher intervention satisfaction [Ms (SEs) = 3.7 (.11) and 3.8 (.11), respectively, vs. 3.1 (.11); ps<0.001), higher contraception consultation visit attendance [Ms(SEs) = 0.80 (.07) and 0.73 (.08) vs. 0.33 (.09); p < .001], and greater LARC receipt [Ms(SEs) = 0.77 (.08) and 0.73 (.08) vs. 0.23 (.08); p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: SAFE appears feasible and efficacious for supporting women in contraception decision-making. Integrating SAFE into women's comprehensive OUD treatment services holds promise to increase contraceptive decision-making and initiation of a chosen method.
Authors: Pepijn van Empelen; Gerjo Kok; Nicole M C van Kesteren; Bart van den Borne; Arjan E R Bos; Herman P Schaalma Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Ashley A Leech; William O Cooper; Elizabeth McNeer; Theresa A Scott; Stephen W Patrick Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Justine J Larson; Devon L Graham; Lynn T Singer; Anna M Beckwith; Mishka Terplan; Jonathan M Davis; Juan Martinez; Henrietta S Bada Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-07-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jonathan J K Stoltman; Laura R Lander; Julie H Patrick; Mishka Terplan; Hendrée E Jones Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 5.435