Advertisement

Pull and pray or extra protection? Contraceptive strategies involving withdrawal among US adult women

      Abstract

      Objective

      Research assessing contraceptive use often focuses on the most effective method used and suggests that very few women rely on withdrawal. We adopted a new measurement strategy in an attempt to measure contraceptive practices and withdrawal in particular.

      Study design

      We collected data from a national sample of 4634 US women aged 18–39; the survey was administered online in November and December 2012. We obtained information about recent use of hormonal methods and coital methods using two separate items, and we placed withdrawal first on the list of coital methods. The analysis examines several measures of withdrawal use in the last 30 days: most effective method used, any use, use with other methods and withdrawal “method mix.”

      Results

      Among women at risk of unintended pregnancy, 13% reported that withdrawal was the most effective method used in the last 30 days, but 33% had used withdrawal at least once. Most women who used withdrawal had also used a hormonal or long-acting method (13% of the sample) or condoms (11%) in the last 30 days, and a minority reported using only withdrawal (12%). Younger women, women in dating relationships and women strongly motivated to avoid pregnancy had some of the highest levels of “dual” use of withdrawal with condoms or highly effective methods.

      Conclusion

      Many women and couples in our sample used withdrawal in combination, or rotation, with condoms and highly effective methods. Findings suggest that some people who use withdrawal may be more versus less vigilant about pregnancy prevention.

      Implications

      Health care providers who discuss contraception should include withdrawal in these conversations. A substantial minority of individuals has used it recently, and many appear to be using it as a backup or secondary method. If dual use were more widespread, it could help reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy.

      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 access
      One-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 Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kost K.
        • Singh S.
        • Vaughan B.
        • Trussell J.
        • Bankole A.
        Estimates of contraceptive failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth.
        Contraception. 2008; 77: 10-21
        • Doherty I.A.
        • Stuart G.S.
        Coitus interruptus is not contraception.
        Sex Transm Dis. 2011; 38: 356
        • Miller R.
        Withdrawal: “a very great deal better than nothing".
        Can J Hum Sex. 2003; 12: 189-190
        • Mosher W.D.
        • Jones J.
        Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008.
        Vital Health Stat. 2010; 23: 1-44
        • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        • National Council for Health Statistics
        2006-2010, National Survey of Family Growth.
        Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hyattsville, MD2011
        • Jones R.K.
        • Fennell J.
        • Higgins J.A.
        • Blanchard K.
        Better than nothing or savvy risk-reduction practice? The importance of withdrawal.
        Contraception. 2009; 79: 407-410
        • Sznitman S.R.
        • Romer D.
        • Brown L.K.
        • DiClemente R.J.
        • Valois R.F.
        • Vanable P.A.
        • et al.
        Prevalence, correlates, and sexually transmitted infection risk related to coitus interruptus among African–American adolescents.
        Sex Transm Dis. 2009; 36: 218-220
        • Dehlendorf C.
        • Foster D.G.
        • de Bocanegra H.T.
        • Brindis C.
        • Bradsberry M.
        • Darney P.
        Race, ethnicity and differences in contraception among low-income women: methods received by Family PACT Clients, California, 2001–2007.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011; 43: 181-187
        • Frost J.J.
        • Darroch J.E.
        Factors associated with contraceptive choice and inconsistent method use, United States, 2004.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008; 40: 94-104
        • Rocca C.H.
        • Harper C.C.
        Do racial and ethnic differences in contraceptive attitudes and knowledge explain disparities in method use?.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012; 44: 150-158
        • Santelli J.
        • Lindberg L.D.
        • Finer L.B.
        • Rickert V.I.
        • Bensyl D.
        • Posner S.
        • et al.
        Comparability of contraceptive prevalence estimates for women from the 2002 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.
        Public Health Rep. 2008; 123: 147-154
        • Higgins J.A.
        • Hirsch J.S.
        • Trussell J.
        Pleasure, prophylaxis and procreation: a qualitative analysis of intermittent contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008; 40: 130-137
        • Horner J.R.
        • Salazar L.F.
        • Romer D.
        • Vanable P.A.
        • Diclemente R.
        • Carey M.P.
        • et al.
        Withdrawal (coitus interruptus) as a sexual risk reduction strategy: perspectives from African–American adolescents.
        Arch Sex Behav. 2009; 38: 779-787
        • Whittaker P.G.
        • Merkh R.D.
        • Henry-Moss D.
        • Hock-Long L.
        Withdrawal attitudes and experiences: a qualitative perspective among young urban adults.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2010; 42: 102-109
        • Finer L.B.
        • Sonfield A.
        • Jones R.K.
        Changes in out-of-pocket payments for contraception by privately insured women during implementation of the federal contraceptive coverage requirement.
        Contraception. 2014; 89: 97-102
        • Barber J.S.
        • Kusunoki Y.
        • Gatny H.H.
        Design and implementation of an online weekly journal to study unintended pregnancies.
        Vienna Yearb Popul Res. 2011; 9: 327-334
        • Ortalyi N.
        • Bulut A.
        • Ozugurlu M.
        • Cokar M.
        Why withdrawal? Why not withdrawal? Men's perspectives.
        Reprod Health Matters. 2015; 13: 164-173
        • De Visser R.
        Delayed application of condoms, withdrawal and negotiation of safer sex among heterosexual young adults.
        AIDS Care. 2004; 16: 315-322
        • Hensel D.J.
        • Rosenberger J.G.
        • Novak D.S.
        • Reece M.
        Sexual event-level characteristics of condom use during anal intercourse among HIV-negative men who have sex with men.
        Sex Transm Dis. 2012; 39: 550-555
        • Higgins J.A.
        • Tanner A.E.
        • Janssen E.
        Arousal loss related to safer sex and risk of pregnancy: implications for women's and men's sexual health.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2009; 41: 150-157
        • Rosenberger J.G.
        • Reece M.
        • Schick V.
        • Herbenick D.
        • Novak D.S.
        • Van Der Pol B.
        • et al.
        Condom use during most recent anal intercourse event among a U.S. sample of men who have sex with men.
        J Sex Med. 2012; 9: 1037-1047
        • Higgins J.A.
        • Gregor L.
        • Mathur S.
        • Nakyanjo N.
        • Nalugoda F.
        • Santelli J.S.
        Use of withdrawal (coitus interruptus) for both pregnancy and HIV prevention among young adults in Rakai, Uganda.
        University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI2013
        • Dude A.
        • Neustadt A.
        • Martins S.
        • Gilliam M.
        Use of withdrawal and unintended pregnancy among females 15–24 years of age.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 595-600