Long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents and young adults: patient and provider perspectives

Megan L Kavanaugh, Lori Frohwirth, Jenna Jerman, Ronna Popkin, Kathleen Ethier, Megan L Kavanaugh, Lori Frohwirth, Jenna Jerman, Ronna Popkin, Kathleen Ethier

Abstract

Study objective: To describe and explore provider- and patient-level perspectives regarding long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for teens and young adults (ages 16-24).

Methods: Data collection occurred between June and December 2011. We first conducted telephone interviews with administrative directors at 20 publicly funded facilities that provide family planning services. At 6 of these sites, we conducted a total of 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with facility staff and 48 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with facility clients ages 16-24.

Results: Staff in the FGDs did not generally equate being a teen with ineligibility for IUDs. In contrast to staff, one-quarter of the young women did perceive young age as rendering them ineligible. Clients and staff agreed that the "forgettable" nature of the methods and their duration were some of LARC's most significant advantages. They also agreed that fear of pain associated with both insertion and removal and negative side effects were disadvantages. Some aspects of IUDs and implants were perceived as advantages by some clients but disadvantages by others. Common challenges to providing LARC-specific services to younger patients included extra time required to counsel young patients about LARC methods, outdated clinic policies requiring multiple visits to obtain IUDs, and a perceived higher removal rate among young women. The most commonly cited strategy for addressing many of these challenges was securing supplementary funding to support the provision of these services to young patients.

Conclusion: Incorporating young women's perspectives on LARC methods into publicly funded family planning facilities' efforts to provide these methods to a younger population may increase their use among young women.

Copyright © 2013 North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Client and staff perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of LARC methods, listed in descending order from most to least common within groups. Top four characteristics mentioned in client IDIs and staff FGDs are presented. Underlined characteristics represent agreement between clients and staff.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Challenges to providing LARCs to young women and strategies to combat these challenges, as identified by administrators and staff at lower rates of LARC provision facilities (challenges) and higher rates of LARC provision facilities (both challenges and strategies).

References

    1. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health. 2006;38(2):90–96.
    1. Committee on Unintended Pregnancy . The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Insitutue of Medicine; Washington, DC: 1995.
    1. Finer LB. Unintended pregnancy among U.S. adolescents: Accounting for sexual activity. J. Adolesc. Health. 2010 Sep;47(3):312–314.
    1. Frost JJ, Darroch JE, Remez L. Improving contraceptive use in the United States. Guttmacher Institute; New York: 2008.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1434–1438.
    1. Speidel JJ, Harper CC, Shields WC. The potential of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2008 Sep;78(3):197–200.
    1. Trussell J. Contraceptive efficacy. In: Hatcher RA, Trussell J, Stewart F, et al., editors. Contraceptive Technology. 18th Revised ed Ardent Media, Inc.; New York: 2004. pp. 773–791.
    1. Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptions. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.
    1. Finer LB, Jerman J, Kavanaugh ML. Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007-2009. Fertil. Steril. 2012 Jul 13;
    1. Kaye K, Suellentrop K, Sloup C. The fog zone: How misperceptions, magical thinking, and ambivalence put young adults at risk for unplanned pregnancy. National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy; Washington, DC: 2009.
    1. Foster DG, Biggs MA, Ralph LJ, Arons A, Brindis CD. Family planning and life planning reproductive intentions among individuals seeking reproductive health care. Womens Health Issues. 2008 Sep-Oct;18(5):351–359.
    1. Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982-2008. Vital Health Stat. 2010;23(29)
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG Committee Opinion No. 392: Intrauterine device and adolescents. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1493–1495.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 121: Long-acting reversible contraceptives: Implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet. Gynecol. 2011;118(1):184–196.
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. medical eligbility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2010;59:1–86.
    1. Harper CC, Blum M, Theil de Bocanegra H, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: The provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008;111(6):1359–1369.
    1. Madden T, Allsworth JE, Hladky KJ, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: A survey of obstetrician and gynecologists’ knowledge and attitudes. Contraception. 2010 Feb;81(2):112–116.
    1. Tyler CP, Whiteman MK, Zapata LB, Curtis KM, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA. Health care provider attitudes and practices related to intrauterine devices for nulliparous women. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012 Apr;119(4):762–771.
    1. Russo JA, Creinin MD. Update: Contraception. OBG Management. 2010;22(8):16, 18–20, 22–23.
    1. Fleming KL, Sokoloff A, Raine TR. Attitudes and beliefs about the intrauterine device among teenagers and young women. Contraception. 2010 Aug;82(2):178–182.
    1. Rose SB, Cooper AJ, Baker NK, Lawton B. Attitudes toward long-acting reversible contraception among young women seeking abortion. J. Womens Health. 2011 Nov;20(11):1729–1735.
    1. Spies EL, Askelson NM, Gelman E, Losch M. Young women’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to long-acting reversible contraceptives. Womens Health Issues. 2010 Nov-Dec;20(6):394–399.
    1. Stanwood NL, Bradley KA. Young pregnant women’s knowledge of modern intrauterine devices. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006;108(6):1417–1422.
    1. Whitaker AK, Johnson LM, Harwood B, Chiappetta L, Creinin MD, Gold MA. Adolescent and young adult women’s knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device. Contraception. 2008 Sep;78(3):211–217.
    1. Frost JJ. Paper presented at: Research Conference on the National Survey of Family Growth. Hyattsville, MD: Oct 19, 2006. Using the NSFG to examine the scope and source of contraceptive and preventive reproductive health services obrained by U.S. women, 1995-2002.
    1. Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Zapata LB, Ethier K, Moskosky S. Meeting the contraceptive needs of adolescents and young adults: Youth-friendly and long-acting reversible contraceptive services in U.S. family planning facilities. J. Adolesc. Health. forthcoming
    1. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among the five approaches. 2nd ed Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2007.
    1. Maxwell JA. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. 2nd ed Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 2005.
    1. Warren CAB, Karner TX. Discovering qualitative methods: Field research, interviews, and analysis. 2nd ed Oxford University Press; New York: 2010.
    1. Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1994.
    1. Moustakas C. Phenomenological research methods. Sage; Thousand Oaks, CA: 1994.
    1. Carey MA. Comment: Concerns in the analysis of focus group data. Qual. Health Res. 1995;5(4):487–495.
    1. Sundstrom B. Fifty years on “the pill”: a qualitative analysis of nondaily contraceptive options. Contraception. 2012 Jul;86(1):4–11.
    1. Vaughan B, Trussell J, Kost K, Singh S, Jones R. Discontinuation and resumption of contraceptive use: results from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Contraception. 2008 Oct;78(4):271–283.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG practice bulletin 109: Cervical cytology screening. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1409–1420.
    1. Hall KS, Moreau C, Trussell J. Determinants of and disparities in reproductive health service use among adolescent and young adult women in the United States, 2002-2008. Am. J. Public Health. 2012;102(2):359–367.
    1. Mestad R, Secura G, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Contraception. 2011 Nov;84(5):493–498.
    1. Clinical Training Center for Family Planning [Accessed August 4, 2012];CTCFP/Title X Initiative: LARC-Reliable and Reversible Contraception of Choice 2012.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj