Abstract
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.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Hatcher R.A. Trussell J. Nelson A.L. Cates W. Stewart F.H. Kowal D. Contraceptive technology. 19th ed. Ardent Media, Inc, New York2007
- Young pregnant women's knowledge of modern intrauterine devices.Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 1417-1422
- Contraceptive characteristics: the perceptions and priorities of men and women.Fam Plan Perspect. 1999; 31: 168-175
- A pilot study on the acceptability of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device by young, single, nulliparous Chinese females following surgical abortion.Contraception. 2004; 69: 247-250
- Revisiting the intrauterine contraceptive device in adolescents.J Pediat Adolesc Gynecol. 2006; 19: 291-296
- Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, National Survey of Family Growth 2006���2008. National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Health Stat. 2010; 23 (Accessed on June 11, 2010 at)
- ACOG Committee opinion number 392.Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 1493-1495
- Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception.Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 1359-1369
- The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203: 115e1--7
- Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157: 940-943
- What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes.JAMA. 1998; 280: 1690-1691
- Adolescent and young adult women's knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device.Contraception. 2008; 78: 211-217
- Intrauterine contraception in St. Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists��� knowledge and attitudes.Contraception. 2010; 81: 112-116
- Use of contraception in the United States: 1982���2008. National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Health Stat. 2010; 23 (Accessed on June 11, 2010 at)
- Unintended pregnancy in the United States.Fam Plan Perspect. 1998; 30: 24-29
- Economic analysis of contraceptives for women.Contraception. 2003; 68: 3-10
- U.S. teenage pregnancies, births, and abortions: national and state trends and trends by race and ethnicity.(Accessed on April 14, 2010 at)
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 27, 2011
Accepted:
March 1,
2011
Received in revised form:
February 17,
2011
Received:
December 1,
2010
Identification
Copyright
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
