Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project

被引:195
|
作者
Mestad, Renee [1 ]
Secura, Gina [1 ]
Allsworth, Jenifer E. [1 ]
Madden, Tessa [1 ]
Zhao, Qiuhong [1 ]
Peipert, Jeffrey F. [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Div Clin Res, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Adolescent contraception; Intrauterine device; Contraceptive implant; Adolescent pregnancy; Contraception; WOMENS KNOWLEDGE; RELATIVE RISK; YOUNG; COHORT;
D O I
10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.001
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: Adolescent women have a high risk of unintended pregnancy. Currently, there are little data about their choice to initiate long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Study Design: We evaluated the association of age and preference for a LARC vs. a non-LARC method among adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, comparing those aged 14-17 years to adolescents aged 18-20 years. We then analyzed the association between age and choice of the implant vs. the intrauterine device (IUD) among adolescents. Results: Of the 5086 women enrolled, 70% (n=3557) of participants chose a LARC method. Among adolescents aged 14-20 years, 69% of 14-17-year-olds chose LARC, while 61% of 18-20-year-olds chose LARC (relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.30). Among adolescents choosing a LARC method, 63% (n=93/148) of the 14-17-year-olds chose the implant, whereas 71% (n=364/510) of the 18-20-year-olds chose the IUD. Conclusion: Long-acting reversible contraception use is clearly acceptable and common among adolescents enrolled in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, with the younger group being most interested in the implant. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / 498
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] The Role of Reproductive Autonomy in Adolescent Contraceptive Choice and Acceptance of Long-acting Reversible Contraception
    Pindar, Christina
    Lee, Sara H.
    Meropol, Sharon B.
    Lazebnik, Rina
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC AND ADOLESCENT GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 33 (05) : 494 - 499
  • [2] The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception
    Secura, Gina M.
    Allsworth, Jenifer E.
    Madden, Tessa
    Mullersman, Jennifer L.
    Peipert, Jeffrey F.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 203 (02) : 115.e1 - 115.e7
  • [3] Impact of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Counseling on Postpartum Contraceptive Choice
    Torre, Bryna
    Nokovic, Jessica
    Shelton, James
    Tsai, Pai-Jong
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 131 : 80S - 80S
  • [4] Long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARCs) methods
    Bahamondes, Luis
    Fernandes, Arlete
    Monteiro, Ilza
    Bahamondes, M. Valeria
    [J]. BEST PRACTICE & RESEARCH CLINICAL OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2020, 66 : 28 - 40
  • [5] Residency Training in Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods
    Geary, Meghan
    Prifti, Christine
    Bachorik, Alexandra
    [J]. JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2017, 177 (07) : 1061 - 1062
  • [6] Clinical Challenges of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods
    Eisenberg, David L.
    Tyson, Nichole
    Espey, Eve
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 128 (03): : E69 - E77
  • [7] Provision of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by pediatricians
    Norris, A.
    Pritt, N.
    Berlan, E.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2015, 92 (04) : 376 - 376
  • [8] Familiarity and acceptability of long-acting reversible contraception and contraceptive choice
    Paul, Rachel
    Huysman, Bridget C.
    Maddipati, Ragini
    Madden, Tessa
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 222 (04) : S884.e1 - S884.e9
  • [9] Factors that contribute to discontinuation of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods
    Sen, M.
    Anderson, B.
    Yu, D.
    Diaz, J.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2015, 92 (04) : 407 - 407
  • [10] METHODS OF CONTRACEPTIVE PROVISION AND THE UPTAKE OF LONG-ACTING REVERSIBLE CONTRACEPTION
    Madden, T.
    [J]. CONTRACEPTION, 2016, 94 (04) : 408 - 408