Suppr超能文献

避孕药具使用情况的比较——避孕选择项目与州及国家数据的比较。

Comparison of contraceptive use between the Contraceptive CHOICE Project and state and national data.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Clinical Research, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

出版信息

Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):479-85. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.10.001. Epub 2010 Nov 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

We compared contraceptive prevalence reported in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project (CHOICE) at time of enrollment with estimates from representative surveys, the 2006-2008 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) and 2006 Missouri Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS).

STUDY DESIGN

We calculated survey weights for CHOICE participants and compared selected demographic characteristics and prevalence estimates of current contraceptive methods being used at the time of enrollment.

RESULTS

Compared with the NSFG, CHOICE participants at the time of enrollment were less likely to be contraceptive pill users (16.1% vs. 24.0%) and more likely to use condoms (23.8% vs. 13.8%). Compared with the BRFSS, CHOICE participants were more likely to use condoms (20.4% vs. 12.9%) and withdrawal (6.6% vs. 0.4%).

CONCLUSION

Despite differences in sampling strategies between CHOICE and state and national surveys, the contraceptive prevalence estimates were largely similar. This information combined with the high rates of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use after enrollment by CHOICE particiants that have been previously reported by study participants may imply that cost and restricted access to LARC could be essential factors in the low rates of LARC use in the United States.

摘要

背景

我们将参与避孕选择项目(CHOICE)的参与者在登记时报告的避孕普及率与代表性调查,即 2006-2008 年全国家庭增长调查(NSFG)和 2006 年密苏里州行为危险因素监测系统(BRFSS)的估计值进行了比较。

研究设计

我们为 CHOICE 参与者计算了调查权重,并比较了在登记时使用的当前避孕方法的选择人口统计学特征和流行率估计值。

结果

与 NSFG 相比,登记时的 CHOICE 参与者中避孕药使用者的比例较低(16.1%对 24.0%),而使用避孕套的比例较高(23.8%对 13.8%)。与 BRFSS 相比,CHOICE 参与者更有可能使用避孕套(20.4%对 12.9%)和体外排精(6.6%对 0.4%)。

结论

尽管 CHOICE 和州及国家调查的抽样策略存在差异,但避孕普及率估计值大致相似。这些信息,加上此前研究参与者报告的 CHOICE 参与者在登记后长效可逆避孕(LARC)使用率较高,可能意味着成本和对 LARC 的限制获取可能是美国 LARC 使用率低的重要因素。

相似文献

6
Dual method use among long-acting reversible contraceptive users.长效可逆避孕方法使用者中双重方法的使用情况。
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018 Apr;23(2):97-104. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1445850. Epub 2018 Mar 27.

引用本文的文献

4
Medicaid savings from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project: a cost-savings analysis.《避孕选择项目的医疗补助节省:成本节约分析》。
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Dec;219(6):595.e1-595.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.08.043. Epub 2018 Sep 5.
5
A qualitative analysis of long-acting reversible contraception.长效可逆避孕法的定性分析
Matern Child Health J. 2015 Jul;19(7):1507-14. doi: 10.1007/s10995-014-1655-0.
10
Women's preferences for contraceptive counseling and decision making.女性对避孕咨询和决策的偏好。
Contraception. 2013 Aug;88(2):250-6. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.10.012. Epub 2012 Nov 21.

本文引用的文献

3
Reasons for ineffective pre-pregnancy contraception use in patients seeking abortion services.寻求堕胎服务患者避孕失败的原因。
Contraception. 2009 Dec;80(6):569-74. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.05.127. Epub 2009 Jul 10.
4
Forgettable contraception.易被遗忘的避孕措施。
Contraception. 2009 Dec;80(6):497-9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jul 10.
5
A power primer.强力底漆。
Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul;112(1):155-9. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155.
6
Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States.美国避孕药具的成本效益
Contraception. 2009 Jan;79(1):5-14. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.08.003. Epub 2008 Sep 25.
10
The cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States.美国意外怀孕的代价。
Contraception. 2007 Mar;75(3):168-70. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.11.009. Epub 2007 Jan 18.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验