Abstract
Objectives
Study design
Results
Conclusions
Implications
Keywords
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 ContraceptionReferences
- Intended pregnancies and unintended pregnancies: distinct categories or opposite ends of a continuum?.Fam Plann Perspect. 1999; 31: 251-252
- Change and consistency in US women's pregnancy attitudes and associations with contraceptive use.Contraception. 2017; 95: 485-490
- Rethinking the pregnancy planning paradigm: unintended conceptions or unrepresentative concepts?.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2016; 48: 147
- ONE KEY QUESTION: preventive reproductive health is part of high quality primary care.Contraception. 2013; 88: 3-6
- Addressing potential pitfalls of reproductive life planning with patient-centered counseling.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 216: 129-134
- Pregnancy ambivalence and contraceptive use among young adults in the United States.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012; 44: 236-243
- Prevalence and correlates of ambivalence towards pregnancy among nonpregnant women.Contraception. 2007; 75: 305-310
- Using longitudinal data to understand changes in consistent contraceptive use.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2015; 47: 131-139
- Pleasure, prophylaxis and procreation: a qualitative analysis of intermittent contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008; 40: 130-137
- Ambivalent feelings about parenthood may lead to inconsistent contraceptive use--and pregnancy.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 1999; 31: 250
- Factors associated with contraceptive use and nonuse, United States, 2004.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007; 39: 90-99
- A blessing I can't afford: factors underlying the paradox of happiness about unintended pregnancy.Soc Sci Med. 2015; 132: 149-155
- The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203 ([e1-. e7]): 115
- Shared decision making in contraceptive counseling.Contraception. 2017; 95: 452-455
- Contraceptive method use during the community-wide HER salt lake contraceptive initiative.Am J Public Health. 2018; 108: 550-556
- Contraceptive counseling: best practices to ensure quality communication and enable effective contraceptive use.Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 57: 659
- Are Latina women ambivalent about pregnancies they are trying to prevent? Evidence from the Border Contraceptive Access Study.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013; 45: 196-203
- Pregnancy ambivalence and long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use among young adult women: a qualitative study.Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health. 2017; 49: 149-156
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
☆Funding: This project is funded by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and an anonymous foundation. The following companies contributed contraceptive products for the project: Bayer Women's Healthcare, Merck & Co. Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals.
☆☆Use of REDCap provided by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development grant [8UL1TR000105 (formerly UL1RR025764) NCATS/NIH].
★Team members receive support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development and the Office of Research on Women's Health of the National Institute of Health, J.N.S. via Award Number K12HD085852 and D.K.T. via K24HD087436.
★★The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of any of the funding agencies or participating institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, the University of Utah or Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
☆☆☆Conflict of interest: The University of Utah Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Program in Family Planning receives research funding from Bayer Women's Health Care, Merck & Co. Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals, Bioceptive, Contramed and Medicines 360. P.C. originally developed the PATH questions and serves on an advisory Board for Teva, ContraMed and Cooper Surgical and as speaker/trainer for Teva, ContraMed and Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
