Premium
Use of Reversible Contraceptive Methods Among U.S. Women with Physical or Sensory Disabilities
Author(s) -
Wu Justine P.,
McKee Kimberly S.,
McKee Michael M.,
Meade Michelle A.,
Plegue Melissa A.,
Sen Ananda
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
perspectives on sexual and reproductive health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.818
H-Index - 93
eISSN - 1931-2393
pISSN - 1538-6341
DOI - 10.1363/psrh.12031
Subject(s) - medicine , unintended pregnancy , family planning , pregnancy , context (archaeology) , population , natural family planning , odds ratio , environmental health , pathology , biology , research methodology , genetics , paleontology
CONTEXT Women with disabilities experience a higher rate of adverse pregnancy outcomes than women without disabilities. Preventing or delaying pregnancy when that is the best choice for a woman is a critical strategy to reducing pregnancy‐related disparities, yet little is known about current contraceptive use among women with disabilities. METHODS A cohort of 545 reproductive‐age women with physical disabilities (i.e., difficulty walking, climbing, dressing or bathing) or sensory disabilities (i.e., difficulty with vision or hearing) was identified from among participants in the 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth. Those at risk for unplanned pregnancy were categorized by whether they were using highly effective reversible contraceptive methods ( IUD , implant), moderately effective ones (pill, patch, ring, injectable), less effective ones (condoms, withdrawal, spermicides, diaphragm, natural family planning) or no method. Multinomial regression was conducted to examine the association between disability and type of contraceptive used. RESULTS Some 39% of women with disabilities were at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and 27% of those at risk were not using contraceptives. The presence of disability was associated with decreased odds of using highly effective methods or moderately effective methods, rather than less effective ones (odds ratio, 0.6 for each), but had no association with using no method. CONCLUSION There is a significant need to reduce contraceptive disparities related to physical or sensory disabilities. Future research should explore the extent to which contraceptive use differs by type and severity of disability, as well as identify contextual factors that contribute to any identified differences.