4.3 Article

Acceptance of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods by adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project

Journal

CONTRACEPTION
Volume 84, Issue 5, Pages 493-498

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.001

Keywords

Adolescent contraception; Intrauterine device; Contraceptive implant; Adolescent pregnancy; Contraception

Funding

  1. anonymous foundation
  2. Midcareer Investigator Award in Women's Health Research [K24 HD01298]
  3. Clinical and Translational Science Awards [UL1RR024992]
  4. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NTH) [KL2RR024994, K3054628]
  5. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Adolescent women have a high risk of unintended pregnancy. Currently, there are little data about their choice to initiate long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Study Design: We evaluated the association of age and preference for a LARC vs. a non-LARC method among adolescent participants in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, comparing those aged 14-17 years to adolescents aged 18-20 years. We then analyzed the association between age and choice of the implant vs. the intrauterine device (IUD) among adolescents. Results: Of the 5086 women enrolled, 70% (n=3557) of participants chose a LARC method. Among adolescents aged 14-20 years, 69% of 14-17-year-olds chose LARC, while 61% of 18-20-year-olds chose LARC (relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.30). Among adolescents choosing a LARC method, 63% (n=93/148) of the 14-17-year-olds chose the implant, whereas 71% (n=364/510) of the 18-20-year-olds chose the IUD. Conclusion: Long-acting reversible contraception use is clearly acceptable and common among adolescents enrolled in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, with the younger group being most interested in the implant. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available