Associations between unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost and low-income patients' access to and experiences of contraceptive care in the United States, 2015-2019.

Contraceptive preferences Contraceptive use Cost National Survey of Family Growth Person-centered contraceptive counseling United States

Journal

Contraception: X
ISSN: 2590-1516
Titre abrégé: Contracept X
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101767748

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 22 09 2021
revised: 11 04 2022
accepted: 13 04 2022
entrez: 27 5 2022
pubmed: 28 5 2022
medline: 28 5 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To identify prevalence of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost among low-income United States female contraceptive method users and nonusers, and associations between access to, and experience with, contraceptive care and this outcome. We drew on data from the 2015-2019 National Surveys of Family Growth to conduct simple and multivariable logistic regression analyses on unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost among nationally representative samples of low-income women ages 15 to 49 who were current contraceptive users ( Overall, 23% of female contraceptive users reported they would use a different method, and 39% of nonusers reported they would start using a method, if cost were not an issue. Controlling for user characteristics, low-income contraceptive users who received recent publicly supported contraceptive care reported significantly higher levels of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost than those without any access to SRH care (aOR = 1.6, CI 1.0-2.5), while having private (aOR = 0.6, CI 0.4-0.9) or public (aOR = 0.7, CI 0.5-1.0) health insurance was associated with significantly lower levels of this outcome. Nonusers of contraception who had recently received publicly supported contraceptive care also reported marginally higher levels of this outcome (aOR = 2.2, CI 1.0-5.1). Contraceptive users who received recent person-centered contraceptive counseling had marginally lower odds of unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost (aOR = 0.6, CI 0.4-1.0). Cost is a barrier to using preferred contraception for both contraceptive users and nonusers; health insurance coverage and person-centered contraceptive counseling may help contraceptive users to overcome cost barriers and realize their contraceptive preferences. Factors related to contraceptive access at the systems level-specifically the subsidization and experience of contraceptive care-impact whether cost serves as a barrier to individuals' contraceptive preferences. Delivery of patient-centered care and shoring up health insurance coverage for all can help to mitigate cost barriers and enable individuals to realize their contraceptive preferences.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35620731
doi: 10.1016/j.conx.2022.100076
pii: S2590-1516(22)00005-3
pmc: PMC9126850
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100076

Informations de copyright

© 2022 The Authors.

Références

Am J Prev Med. 2018 Nov;55(5):691-702
pubmed: 30342632
Contracept X. 2020 Jul 07;2:100032
pubmed: 32715289
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012 Sep;44(3):194-200
pubmed: 22958664
Contraception. 2021 May;103(5):328-335
pubmed: 33607120
Contracept X. 2019 Nov 15;2:100014
pubmed: 32550529
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;117(5):1105-1113
pubmed: 21508749
Contraception. 2014 Nov;90(5):488-95
pubmed: 25129329
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;215(1):78.e1-9
pubmed: 26827879
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017 Jun;26(6):692-701
pubmed: 27710196
Contraception. 2021 May;103(5):310-315
pubmed: 33508252
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Dec;57(4):659-73
pubmed: 25264697
Contraception. 2018 Jul;98(1):47-51
pubmed: 29453946
Contracept X. 2020 Jul 11;2:100033
pubmed: 32760908
F S Rep. 2020 Jul 09;1(2):83-93
pubmed: 34223223
Contraception. 2020 Feb;101(2):79-85
pubmed: 31805265
Contracept X. 2021 Feb 08;3:100060
pubmed: 33665606
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007 Jun;39(2):90-9
pubmed: 17565622

Auteurs

Megan L Kavanaugh (ML)

Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, United States.

Emma Pliskin (E)

Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, United States.

Rubina Hussain (R)

Guttmacher Institute, New York, NY, United States.

Classifications MeSH