Advertisement

Multimorbidity and use of reversible contraception: Results from a Canadian cross-sectional survey

      Abstract

      Objective

      Despite the importance of contraception for pregnancy planning in females with chronic conditions, little is known about contraception use in those with two or more chronic conditions—i.e., multimorbidity. We examined contraception use among females with multimorbidity, one chronic condition, and no identified chronic conditions.

      Study design

      We used data from the 2015 to 2016 Canadian Community Health Survey on 15 to 49-year-old females at risk of unintended pregnancy (n = 12,741), comparing females with ≥2 chronic conditions (21.3%) and one chronic condition (27.7%) to those with no identified chronic conditions (51.0%). We used modified Poisson regression to derive adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) for any contraception vs no contraception, and multinomial logistic regression to derive adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for highly effective, moderately effective, and no contraception vs less effective contraception.

      Results

      Compared to females with no identified chronic conditions, those with multimorbidity were less likely to use any contraception (aPR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 − 0.98). Females with multimorbidity were more likely than those with no identified chronic conditions to use no contraception (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.13 − 1.46), with little to no difference in the use of highly (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91 − 1.29) or moderately effective contraception (aOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 − 1.13), vs less effective contraception. There were no differences between females with one chronic condition and no identified chronic conditions.

      Conclusion

      The lower overall rate of contraception use in females with multimorbidity reflects a need for more attention to family planning in this population, with prompt and convenient access to highly effective options.

      Implications

      Females with multimorbidity were less likely than those with no identified chronic conditions to use any contraception, and no more likely to use highly or moderately effective versus less effective contraception. Individuals with multimorbidity could benefit from attention to family planning, with prompt and convenient access to highly effective options.

      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

        • Benziger CP
        • Roth GA
        • Moran AE.
        The global burden of disease study and the preventable burden of NCD.
        Global Heart. 2016; 11: 393-397https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gheart.2016.10.024
        • Health Canada
        Prevalence of chronic diseases among Canadian adults.
        Health Canada, Ottawa2019
        • Pefoyo AJK
        • Bronskill SE
        • Gruneir A
        • et al.
        The increasing burden and complexity of multimorbidity.
        BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 415https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1733-2
        • Marengoni A
        • Rizzuto D
        • Wang HX
        • Winblad B
        • Fratiglioni L.
        Patterns of chronic multimorbidity in the elderly population.
        J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009; 57: 225-230https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02109.x
        • Rosella L
        • Kornas K
        • Huang A
        • Bornbaum C
        • Henry D
        • Wodchis WP.
        Accumulation of chronic conditions at the time of death increased in Ontario from 1994 to 2013.
        Health Affairs. 2018; 37: 464-472https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1150
        • Roberts K
        • Rao D
        • Bennett T
        • Loukine L
        • Jayaraman G.
        Prevalence and patterns of chronic disease multimorbidity and associated determinants in Canada.
        Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2015; 35: 87https://doi.org/10.24095/hpcdp.35.6.01
        • Agborsangaya CB
        • Lau D
        • Lahtinen M
        • Cooke T
        • Johnson JA.
        Health-related quality of life and healthcare utilization in multimorbidity: results of a cross-sectional survey.
        Qual Life Res. 2013; 22: 791-799https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0214-7
        • Lofters A
        • Guilcher SJT
        • Glazier RH
        • Jaglal S
        • Voth J
        • Bayoumi A.
        Screening for cervical cancer in women with disability and multimorbidity: a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada.
        CMAJ Open. 2014; 2: E240-E247https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20140003
        • Chor J
        • Rankin K
        • Harwood B
        • Handler A.
        Unintended pregnancy and postpartum contraceptive use in women with and without chronic medical disease who experienced a live birth.
        Contraception. 2011; 84: 57-63https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.11.018
      1. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists. The importance of preconception care in the continuum of women's healthcare. Committee Opinion No. 313.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106: 665-666https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200509000-00052
        • Misra DP
        • Grason H
        • Weisman C.
        An intersection of women’s and perinatal health: the role of chronic conditions.
        Womens Health Issues. 2000; 10: 256-267https://doi.org/10.1016/s1049-3867(00)00054-2
        • Creanga AA
        • Berg CJ
        • Ko JY
        • et al.
        Maternal mortality and morbidity in the United States: Where are we now?.
        J Womens Health. 2014; 23: 3-9https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2013.4617
        • Admon LK
        • Wilkelman TN
        • Heisler M
        • Dalton VK.
        Obstetric outcomes and delivery-related health care utilization and costs among pregnant women with multiple chronic conditions.
        Prev Chron Dis. 2018; 15: E21https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd15.170397
        • DeNoble AE
        • Hall KS
        • Xu X
        • Zochowski MK
        • Piehl K
        • Dalton VK.
        Receipt of prescription contraception by commercially insured women with chronic medical conditions.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1213https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000279
        • Phillips-Bell GS
        • Sappenfield W
        • Robbins CL
        • Hernandez L.
        Chronic diseases and use of contraception among women at risk of unintended pregnancy.
        J Womens Health. 2016; 25: 1262-1269https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2015.5576
        • Gawron LM
        • Sanders JN
        • Sward K
        • Poursaid AE
        • Simmons R
        • Turok DK.
        Multi-morbidity and highly effective contraception in reproductive-age women in the US Intermountain West: a retrospective cohort study.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2019; 35: 637-642https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05425-5
        • Black AY
        • Guilbert E
        • Costescu D
        • et al.
        Canadian Contraception Consensus Chapter 1: contraception in Canada.
        J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2015; 37: S5-S12https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)39370-7
      2. World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use (MEC), 5th edition. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

        • Béland Y
        • Dale V
        • Dufour J
        • Hamel M.
        The Canadian Community Health Survey: building on the success from the past.
        in: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association Joint Statistical Meetings. 2005
        • Willadsen TG
        • Bebe A
        • Koster-Rasmussen R
        • Jarbol DE
        • Guassora AD
        • Waldorff FB
        • et al.
        The role of diseases, risk factors, and symptoms in the definition of multimorbidity – systematic review.
        Scand J Primary Health Care. 2016; 34: 112-121https://doi.org/10.3109/02813432.2016.1153242
        • Fortin M
        • Stewart M
        • Poitras M-E
        • Almirall J
        • Maddocks H.
        A systematic review of prevalence studies on multimorbidity: toward a more uniform methodology.
        Ann Fam Med. 2012; 10: 142-151https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1337
        • US Department of Health and Human Services
        Effectiveness of family planning methods.
        US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC2011
        • Wu JP
        • McKee KS
        • McKee MM
        • Meade MA
        • Plegue MA
        • Sen A.
        Use of reversible contraceptive methods among US women with physical or sensory disabilities.
        Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017; 49: 141-147https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12031
        • American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists
        Understanding and using the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 754-760https://doi.org/10.1007/s11154-011-9177-1
        • Austin PC.
        Using the standardized difference to compare the prevalence of a binary variable between two groups in observational research.
        Comm Stat Sim Comp. 2009; 38: 1228-1234https://doi.org/10.1080/03610910902859574
        • Petersen MR
        • Deddens JA.
        A comparison of two methods for estimating prevalence ratios.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 9https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-9
        • Akers AY
        • Gold MA
        • Borrero S
        • Santucci A
        • Schwarz EB.
        Providers' perspectives on challenges to contraceptive counseling in primary care settings.
        J Womens Health. 2010; 19: 1163-1170https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2009.1735
        • Toomey D
        • Waldron B.
        Family planning and inflammatory bowel disease: the patient and the practitioner.
        Fam Pract. 2013; 30: 64-68https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cms035
        • Black AY
        • Guilbert E
        • Hassan F
        • et al.
        The cost of unintended pregnancies in Canada: Estimating direct cost, role of imperfect adherence, and the potential impact of increased use of long-activing reversible contraceptives.
        J Obstet Gynecol Can. 2015; 37: 1086-1097https://doi.org/10.1016/s1701-2163(16)30074-3
        • Barnett K
        • Mercer SW
        • Norbury M
        • Watt G
        • Wyke S
        • Guthrie B.
        Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study.
        Lancet. 2012; 380: 37-43https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60240-2
        • LaCross A
        • Smaldone A
        • Angelson J.
        Ambivalence toward pregnancy as an indicator for contraceptive nonuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019; 64: 385-394https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12969
        • Nethery E
        • Schummers L
        • Maginley S
        • Dunn S
        • Norman WV.
        Household income and contraceptive methods among female youth: A cross-sectional study using the Canadian Community Health Survey (2009-2010 and 2013-2014).
        CMAJ Open. 2019; 7: E646-E653
        • Finer LB
        • Zolna MR.
        Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006.
        Contraception. 2011; 84: 478-485https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.07.013
        • Peckham A
        • Kreindler S
        • Church J
        • Chatwood S
        • Marchildon G.
        Primary care reforms in Ontario.
        North American Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Manitoba, Alberta, and the Northwest Territories. Toronto2018
        • Wu JP
        • Damschroder LJ
        • Fetters MD
        • et al.
        A web-based decision tool to improve contraceptive counseling for women with chronic medical conditions: protocol for a mixed methods implementation study.
        JMIR Research Protocols. 2018; 7: e107https://doi.org/10.2196/resprot.9249