ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2015
Contraceptive Use Among Women With Medical Conditions in a Nationwide Privately Insured Population.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Beyond individual-level factors that influence family planning uptake among women with diabetes mellitus: a systematic literature review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- What Every Cardiologist Should Know About Contraception and Reproductive Planning in 2025.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Review
- Family planning behaviours among women with diabetes mellitus: a scoping review.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Reproductive decision making in women with medical comorbidities: a qualitative study.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2023Article
- Non-communicable diseases and maternal health: a scoping review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Article
- Racial Differences in Contraception Encounters and Dispensing Among Female Medicaid Beneficiaries With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.Arthritis care & research · 2021Article
- Which Hormones and Contraception for Women with APS? Exogenous Hormone Use in Women with APS.Current rheumatology reports · 2021Review
- Contraceptive methods of privately insured US women with congenital heart defects.American heart journal · 2020Article
- Multi-morbidity and Highly Effective Contraception in Reproductive-Age Women in the US Intermountain West: a Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Description and comparison of postpartum use of effective contraception among women with and without diabetes.Contraception · 2019Article
- Medicaid Claims for Contraception Among Women With Medical Conditions After Release of the US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use.Preventing chronic disease · 2019Article
- Contraceptive Use Among Women with Prediabetes and Diabetes in a US National Sample.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2019Article
- Contraceptive method use among HIV-positive women in a US urban outpatient clinic: an exploratory cross-sectional study.Contraception · 2018Article
- Provision of Moderately and Highly Effective Reversible Contraception to Insured Women With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.Obstetrics and gynecology · 2018Article
- Trends in contraceptive use according to HIV status among privately insured women in the United States.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2017Article
- Contraceptive Considerations for Women with Gastrointestinal Disorders.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2017Review
- New developments in long-acting reversible contraception: the promise of intrauterine devices and implants to improve family planning services.Fertility and sterility · 2016Review
- Dobbs Versus Jackson: Epilepsy, Reproductive Health, and Abortion.Epilepsy currentsArticle
- Contraceptive Methods, Seizures, and Antiepileptic Drugs: More Questions Than Answers.Epilepsy currentsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine contraceptive use among women with selected medical conditions.
methodsWe used a nationwide health care claims database to identify women aged 15-44 years continuously enrolled in private insurance during 2004-2011 with and without selected medical conditions. We assessed current permanent and reversible prescription contraceptive use during October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011, with diagnosis, procedure, and pharmacy codes and calculated prevalence by age and condition. We used polytomous logistic regression to calculate odds of female sterilization or reversible prescription methods compared with neither. Among users of reversible methods, we used logistic regression to calculate odds of using long-acting reversible contraceptives compared with shorter acting methods.
resultsA low proportion of women with medical conditions were using sterilization or reversible prescription methods (45% and 30% of women aged 15-34 and 35-44 years, respectively), and this proportion was consistently lower among the older age group across all medical conditions. Across both age groups, sterilization and long-acting reversible contraceptives were used less frequently than shorter acting methods (injectable, pill, patch, or ring). The odds of sterilization were higher among women with any compared with no condition for women aged 15-34 years (odds ratio [OR] 4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.5-5.3) and 35-44 years (OR 1.2, 95% CI, 1.1-1.2). Among women using reversible prescription methods, the odds of using long-acting reversible contraceptives were increased among those with any compared with no condition for women aged 15-34 years (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 2.1-2.5) and 35-44 years (OR 1.1, 95% CI, 1.1-1.2).
conclusionDespite the potential for serious maternal and fetal pregnancy-associated risks, contraceptive use was not optimal among women with medical conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.