Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah School of Medicine, 30N 1900E Rm 2B-200, Salt Lake City, UT, 84132, USA.
BMC Womens Health. 2022 Aug 2;22(1):327. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01911-x.
Out-of-pocket costs continue to be a barrier to accessing necessary healthcare services, including contraception. We explored how eliminating out-of-pocket cost affects contraceptive method choice among people reporting difficulty paying for healthcare in the previous year, and whether method satisfaction differed by method choice.
We used data from the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative. This prospective cohort study provided participants with no-cost contraception (April 2016-March 2017) following a control period that provided no reduction in cost for the contraceptive implant, a reduced price for the hormonal IUD, and a sliding scale that decreased to no-cost for the copper IUD (September 2015-March 2016). We restricted the study population to those who reported difficulty paying for healthcare in the past 12 months. For our primary outcome assessing changes in method selection between intervention and control periods, we ran simultaneous multivariable logistic regression models for each method, applying test corrections for multiple comparisons. Among participants who continued their method for 1 year, we explored differences in method satisfaction using multivariable logistic regression.
Of the 1,029 participants reporting difficulty paying for healthcare and controlling for other factors, participants more frequently selected the implant (aOR 6.0, 95% CI 2.7, 13.2) and the hormonal IUD (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7, 5.9) during the intervention than control period. Comparing the same periods, participants less frequently chose the injection (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.8) and the pill (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.6). We did not observe a difference in uptake of the copper IUD (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0, 4.1).Contraceptive satisfaction scores differed minimally by contraceptive method used among contraceptive continuers (n = 534). Those who selected LNG IUDs were less likely to report low satisfaction with their method (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.97).
With costs removed, participants who reported difficulty paying for healthcare were more likely to select hormonal IUDs and implants and less likely to select the injectable or contraceptive pills. Among continuers, there were few differences in method satisfaction.
gov Identifier NCT02734199.
自付费用仍是获得必要医疗服务的障碍,包括避孕措施。我们探讨了消除自付费用如何影响报告过去一年难以支付医疗费用的人群对避孕方法的选择,以及方法满意度是否因方法选择而不同。
我们使用了 HER Salt Lake 避孕倡议的数据。这项前瞻性队列研究在控制期(2015 年 9 月至 2016 年 3 月)为参与者提供了免费的避孕措施(2016 年 4 月至 2017 年 3 月),在控制期内,避孕植入物的费用没有降低,激素宫内节育器的价格降低,铜宫内节育器的费用降低至免费(2015 年 9 月至 2016 年 3 月)。我们将研究人群限制为那些报告过去 12 个月难以支付医疗费用的人。对于我们评估干预和对照期间方法选择变化的主要结果,我们为每种方法运行了同时的多变量逻辑回归模型,并对多次比较进行了测试校正。在继续使用该方法 1 年的参与者中,我们使用多变量逻辑回归探索了方法满意度的差异。
在报告难以支付医疗费用的 1029 名参与者中(控制了其他因素),与对照期相比,参与者在干预期更频繁地选择植入物(优势比 6.0,95%置信区间 2.7,13.2)和激素宫内节育器(优势比 3.2,95%置信区间 1.7,5.9)。在比较相同时期时,参与者较少选择注射剂(优势比 0.5,95%置信区间 0.3,0.8)和避孕药(优势比 0.4,95%置信区间 0.3,0.6)。我们没有观察到铜宫内节育器(优势比 2.0,95%置信区间 1.0,4.1)的使用率有所增加。在继续使用避孕措施的 534 名参与者中,避孕方法的使用对避孕满意度评分的差异很小。选择 LNG IUD 的人不太可能报告对其方法的低满意度(优势比 0.5,95%置信区间 0.3,0.97)。
消除费用后,报告难以支付医疗费用的参与者更有可能选择激素宫内节育器和植入物,而不太可能选择注射剂或避孕药。在继续使用者中,方法满意度差异很小。
gov 标识符 NCT02734199。