Department of Maternal and Child Health, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2024 Jun;56(2):182-196. doi: 10.1111/psrh.12269. Epub 2024 Jun 9.
The social and structural environments where people live are understudied in contraceptive research. We assessed if neighborhood measures of racialized socioeconomic deprivation are associated with contraceptive use in the United States.
We used restricted geographic data from four waves of the National Survey of Family Growth (2011-2019) limited to non-pregnant women ages 15-44 who had sex in the last 12 months. We characterized respondent neighborhoods (census tracts) with the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE), a measure of spatial social polarization, into areas of concentrated privilege (predominantly white residents living on high incomes) and deprivation (predominantly people of color living on low incomes). We used multivariable binary and multinomial logistic regression with year fixed effects to estimate adjusted associations between ICE tertile and contraceptive use and method type. We also assessed for an interactive effect of ICE and health insurance type.
Of the 14,396 respondents, 88.4% in neighborhoods of concentrated deprivation used any contraception, compared to 92.7% in the most privileged neighborhoods. In adjusted models, the predicted probability of using any contraception in neighborhoods of concentrated deprivation was 2.8 percentage points lower than in neighborhoods of concentrated privilege, 5.0 percentage points higher for barrier/coital dependent methods, and 4.3 percentage points lower for short-acting methods. Those with Medicaid were less likely to use any contraception than those with private insurance irrespective of neighborhood classification.
This study highlights the salience of structural factors for contraceptive use and the need for continued examination of structural oppressions to inform health policy.
人们生活的社会和结构环境在避孕研究中研究不足。我们评估了邻里层面种族化社会经济剥夺程度指标与美国避孕措施使用之间的关联。
我们使用了四项全国家庭增长调查(2011-2019 年)的限制地理数据,仅包括在过去 12 个月内有过性行为的 15-44 岁非孕妇。我们用集中极端指数(ICE)来描述受访者社区(普查区),ICE 是衡量空间社会极化的一个指标,将集中特权(主要是高收入的白人居民)和剥夺(主要是低收入的有色人种居民)的区域进行分类。我们使用具有年份固定效应的多变量二项和多项逻辑回归来估计 ICE 三分位数与避孕措施使用和方法类型之间的调整关联。我们还评估了 ICE 和健康保险类型之间的交互效应。
在 14396 名受访者中,88.4%的人在集中贫困的社区中使用任何避孕措施,而在最特权的社区中这一比例为 92.7%。在调整后的模型中,集中贫困社区使用任何避孕措施的预测概率比集中特权社区低 2.8 个百分点,比集中特权社区的屏障/依赖性交方法高 5.0 个百分点,比集中特权社区的短效方法低 4.3 个百分点。无论社区分类如何,有医疗补助的人使用任何避孕措施的可能性都低于有私人保险的人。
本研究强调了结构因素对避孕措施使用的重要性,需要继续研究结构性压迫,为健康政策提供信息。