Rocca Corinne H, Thompson Kirsten M J, Goodman Suzan, Westhoff Carolyn L, Harper Cynthia C
Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;214(6):716.e1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.12.009. Epub 2015 Dec 12.
Almost one-half of women having an abortion in the United States have had a previous procedure, which highlights a failure to provide adequate preventive care. Provision of intrauterine devices and implants, which have high upfront costs, can be uniquely challenging in the abortion care setting.
We conducted a study of a clinic-wide training intervention on long-acting reversible contraception and examined the effect of the intervention, insurance coverage, and funding policies on the use of long-acting contraceptives after an abortion.
This subanalysis of a cluster, randomized trial examines data from the 648 patients who had undergone an abortion who were recruited from 17 reproductive health centers across the United States. The trial followed participants 18-25 years old who did not desire pregnancy for a year. We measured the effect of the intervention, health insurance, and funding policies on contraceptive outcomes, which included intrauterine device and implant counseling and selection at the abortion visit, with the use of logistic regression with generalized estimating equations for clustering. We used survival analysis to model the actual initiation of these methods over 1 year.
Women who obtained abortion care at intervention sites were more likely to report intrauterine device and implant counseling (70% vs 41%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.83; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-6.19) and the selection of these methods (36% vs 21%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-3.21). However, the actual initiation of methods was similar between study arms (22/100 woman-years each; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-1.51). Health insurance and funding policies were important for the initiation of intrauterine devices and implants. Compared with uninsured women, those women with public health insurance had a far higher initiation rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.62). Women at sites that provide state Medicaid enrollees abortion coverage also had a higher initiation rate (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-2.88), as did those at sites with state mandates for private health insurance to cover contraception (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-3.07). Few of the women with private insurance used it to pay for the abortion (28%), but those who did initiated long-acting contraceptive methods at almost twice the rate as women who paid for it themselves or with donated funds (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.43).
The clinic-wide training increased long-acting reversible contraceptive counseling and selection but did not change initiation for abortion patients. Long-acting method use after abortion was associated strongly with funding. Restrictions on the coverage of abortion and contraceptives in abortion settings prevent the initiation of desired long-acting methods.
在美国,几乎一半接受堕胎手术的女性此前都做过堕胎手术,这凸显了预防性护理的不足。提供宫内节育器和植入物,前期成本很高,在堕胎护理环境中可能极具挑战性。
我们对一项针对长效可逆避孕的全诊所培训干预措施进行了研究,并考察了该干预措施、保险覆盖范围和资金政策对堕胎后长效避孕方法使用情况的影响。
这项对整群随机试验的子分析,考察了从美国17个生殖健康中心招募的648名接受过堕胎手术的患者的数据。该试验跟踪了18至25岁不想要孩子的参与者长达一年的时间。我们通过使用带有广义估计方程的逻辑回归来分析聚类情况,考察干预措施、医疗保险和资金政策对避孕结果的影响,这些结果包括在堕胎就诊时接受宫内节育器和植入物咨询及选择的情况。我们使用生存分析来模拟这些方法在1年中的实际采用情况。
在干预地点接受堕胎护理的女性更有可能报告接受了宫内节育器和植入物咨询(70%对41%;调整后的优势比为3.83;95%置信区间为2.37 - 6.19)以及选择了这些方法(36%对21%;调整后的优势比为2.11;95%置信区间为1.39 - 3.21)。然而,各研究组之间这些方法的实际采用情况相似(每组每100女性年有22例;调整后的风险比为0.88;95%置信区间为0.51 - 1.51)。医疗保险和资金政策对宫内节育器和植入物的采用很重要。与未参保女性相比,有公共医疗保险的女性采用率要高得多(调整后的风险比为2.18;95%置信区间为1.31 - 3.62)。为州医疗补助计划参保者提供堕胎保险的地点的女性采用率也较高(调整后的风险比为1.73;95%置信区间为1.04 - 2.88),有州规定要求私人医疗保险覆盖避孕的地点的女性也是如此(调整后的风险比为1.80;95%置信区间为1.06 - 3.07)。很少有拥有私人保险的女性用其支付堕胎费用(28%),但那些这样做的女性开始采用长效避孕方法的比率几乎是自己支付或用捐赠资金支付的女性的两倍(调整后的风险比为1.94;95%置信区间为1.10 - 3.43)。
全诊所培训增加了长效可逆避孕咨询和选择,但并未改变堕胎患者的采用情况。堕胎后长效避孕方法的使用与资金密切相关。堕胎环境中对堕胎和避孕覆盖范围的限制阻碍了所需长效方法的采用。