Department of Emergency Medicine, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Womens Health Issues. 2018 Jul-Aug;28(4):306-312. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2018.03.001. Epub 2018 May 3.
Women using emergency departments (ED) or urgent care facilities for their usual care may lack access to contraception. This study examined the relationship between effectiveness of current contraception use (highly effective/effective methods vs. less effective/no method) and usual source of care in the clinic (referent group), urgent care, ED, or none among U.S. reproductive-aged females at risk for unintended pregnancy.
Using the National Survey of Family Growth, we conducted logistic regression analyses using pooled, as well as age- and insurance-stratified, data.
Less effective/no contraception was associated with ED (odds ratio [OR] = 1.9 [95% CI = 1.3, 3]) and no usual source of care (OR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3, 1.8]) in the unadjusted logistic regression. Adjusting for confounders, no usual care source was marginally associated with less effective/no contraception use (OR = 1.2 [95% CI = 1.0, 1.4]; p = .041). Adjusted age- and insurance-stratified analyses revealed that less effective/no contraception was associated with the following: no usual care source for 15 to 19-year-olds (OR = 2.5, [95% CI = 1.5, 4.1]); ED usual care source for 20 to 25-year-olds (OR = 2.2, [95% CI = 1.0, 4.5]; p = .038); ED usual care source for Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program-insured (OR = 2.0, [95% CI = 1.0, 3.7]; p = .042); and ED usual care source for any publicly-funded insurance (adjusted OR = 2.1, [95% CI = 1.1, 3.8]).
Overall, use of less effective/no contraception did not vary substantially by usual source of care. Stratified analyses showed some groups of women with ED usual source of care (20 to 25-year-olds, Medicaid/Children's Health Insurance Program insurance, or any publicly-funded insurance) and no usual care source (15 to 19-year-olds) had higher odds of using less effective/no contraception.
在因常规护理而前往急诊部门(ED)或紧急护理机构的女性中,可能无法获得避孕措施。本研究检查了当前避孕方法使用的有效性(高效/有效方法与低效/无方法)与有意外怀孕风险的美国育龄女性的常规护理诊所(参照组)、紧急护理、ED 或无常规护理来源之间的关系。
使用国家家庭增长调查,我们使用汇总数据以及按年龄和保险分层的数据进行了逻辑回归分析。
在未调整的逻辑回归中,低效/无避孕措施与 ED(比值比[OR] = 1.9 [95%置信区间[CI] = 1.3, 3])和无常规护理来源(OR = 1.5 [95% CI = 1.3, 1.8])相关。调整混杂因素后,无常规护理来源与低效/无避孕措施的使用呈边缘相关(OR = 1.2 [95% CI = 1.0, 1.4];p =.041)。调整年龄和保险分层分析显示,低效/无避孕措施与以下情况相关:15 至 19 岁的女性无常规护理来源(OR = 2.5,[95% CI = 1.5, 4.1]);20 至 25 岁的女性 ED 常规护理来源(OR = 2.2,[95% CI = 1.0, 4.5];p =.038);医疗保险/儿童健康保险计划承保的 ED 常规护理来源(OR = 2.0,[95% CI = 1.0, 3.7];p =.042);以及任何公共资助保险的 ED 常规护理来源(调整后的 OR = 2.1,[95% CI = 1.1, 3.8])。
总体而言,低效/无避孕措施的使用与常规护理来源无显著差异。分层分析显示,一些 ED 常规护理来源的女性群体(20 至 25 岁、医疗保险/儿童健康保险计划保险或任何公共资助保险)和无常规护理来源(15 至 19 岁)使用低效/无避孕措施的可能性更高。