Advertisement

The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception

      Objective

      To introduce and promote the use of long-acting reversible methods of contraception (LARC; intrauterine contraceptives and subdermal implant) by removing financial and knowledge barriers.

      Study Design

      The Contraceptive CHOICE Project is a prospective cohort study of 10,000 women 14-45 years who want to avoid pregnancy for at least 1 year and are initiating a new form of reversible contraception. Women screened for this study are read a script regarding long-acting reversible methods of contraception to increase awareness of these options. Participants choose their contraceptive method that is provided at no cost. We report the contraceptive choice and baseline characteristics of the first 2500 women enrolled August 2007 through December 2008.

      Results

      Sixty-seven percent of women enrolled (95% confidence interval, 65.3–69.0) chose long-acting methods. Fifty-six percent selected intrauterine contraception and 11% selected the subdermal implant.

      Conclusion

      Once financial barriers were removed and long-acting reversible methods of contraception were introduced to all potential participants as a first-line contraceptive option, two-thirds chose long-acting reversible methods of contraception.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Finer L.B.
        • Henshaw S.K.
        Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006; 38: 90-96
        • Jones R.K.
        • Darroch J.E.
        • Henshaw S.K.
        Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000-2001.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002; 34: 294-303
        • Frost J.J.
        • Darroch J.E.
        Factors associated with contraceptive choice and inconsistent method use, United States, 2004.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008; 40: 94-104
        • Chandra A.
        • Martinez G.M.
        • Mosher W.D.
        • Abma J.C.
        • Jones J.
        Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.
        Natl Center Health Stat. 2005; 23: 95
        • Forrest J.D.
        U.S. women's perceptions of and attitudes about the IUD.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996; 51: S30-S34
        • Glasier A.
        • Scorer J.
        • Bigrigg A.
        Attitudes of women in Scotland to contraception: a qualitative study to explore the acceptability of long-acting methods.
        J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2008; 34: 213-217
        • Harper C.C.
        • Blum M.
        • de Bocanegra H.T.
        • et al.
        Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 1359-1369
        • Madden T.
        • Allsworth J.E.
        • Hladky K.J.
        • Secura G.M.
        • Peipert J.F.
        Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists' knowledge and attitudes.
        Contraception. 2010; 81: 112-116
        • Trussell J.
        • Lalla A.M.
        • Doan Q.V.
        • Reyes E.
        • Pinto L.
        • Gricar J.
        Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States.
        Contraception. 2009; 79 (Erratum in: Contraception 2009;80:2229-30): 5-14
        • Edwards S.M.
        • Zieman M.
        • Jones K.
        • Diaz A.
        • Robilotto C.
        • Westhoff C.
        Initiation of oral contraceptives—start now!.
        J Adolesc Health. 2008; 43: 432-436
        • Westhoff C.
        • Heartwell S.
        • Edwards S.
        • et al.
        Initiation of oral contraceptives using a quick start compared with a conventional start: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 1270-1276
        • Westhoff C.
        • Kerns J.
        • Morroni C.
        • Cushman L.F.
        • Tiezzi L.
        • Murphy P.A.
        Quick start: novel oral contraceptive initiation method.
        Contraception. 2002; 66: 141-145
        • Zou G.
        A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159: 702-706
        • Stanwood N.L.
        • Garrett J.M.
        • Konrad T.R.
        Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99: 275-280
        • Whitaker A.K.
        • Johnson L.M.
        • Harwood B.
        • Chiappetta L.
        • Creinin M.D.
        • Gold M.A.
        Adolescent and young adult women's knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device.
        Contraception. 2008; 78: 211-217
        • Postlethwaite D.
        • Trussell J.
        • Zoolakis A.
        • Shabear R.
        • Petitti D.
        A comparison of contraceptive procurement pre- and post-benefit change.
        Contraception. 2007; 76: 360-365
        • Goodman S.
        • Hendlish S.K.
        • Benedict C.
        • Reeves M.F.
        • Pera-Floyd M.
        • Foster-Rosales A.
        Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion.
        Contraception. 2008; 78: 136-142
        • Stringer E.M.
        • Kaseba C.
        • Levy J.
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of the intrauterine contraceptive device vs hormonal contraception in women who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197: 144.e1-144.e8