ArticleJournal of women's health (2002)2017
Women's Contraceptive Preference-Use Mismatch.
Article in Journal of women's health (2002), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contraceptive Alignment: A Descriptive Study of Concordance between Preferred and Actual Contraceptive Method Use.Studies in family planning · 2026Article
- Preferred use of contraceptive methods and reasons for non-use: a cross-sectional survey of a sample of Black, Indigenous, and people of colour in the United States.Sexual and reproductive health matters · 2025Article
- Meeting Contraceptive Preferences Among Low-Income Postpartum Texans: A Counterfactual Analysis of Pregnancy Trajectories.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- The State of Person-Centered Measurement for Family Planning Need and Use: A Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- How Do We Measure Contraceptive Method Preferences? Evidence From a Scoping Review.Studies in family planning · 2025Article
- Barriers to Preferred Contraception Use in Mississippi.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- The pathway to delivering injectable CAB for HIV prevention: strategies from global PrEP leaders leveraging an adapted version of the Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT).Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Relationship between classic indicators of health behaviour and contraceptive choices in women in Flanders.BMC women's health · 2024Article
- Estimates of use of preferred contraceptive method in the United States: a population-based study.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2024Article
- A Survey Evaluating the Relationship Between the Perceived Side Effects of Hormonal Contraception and Physical Activity Levels in Adult U.S. Women.Women in sport & physical activity journal · 2024Article
- Use of preferred contraceptive method among young adults in Texas and California: A comparison by state and insurance coverage.PloS one · 2023Article
- Primary and reproductive healthcare access and use among reproductive aged women and female family planning patients in 3 states.PloS one · 2023Article
- Coerced Choice: Resigned Contraceptive Usership Among Individuals Affected by Reproductive Coercion.Journal of midwifery & women's health · 2022Article
- A prospective analysis of the relationship between sexual acceptability and contraceptive satisfaction over time.American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- What Do We Demand? Responding to the Call for Precision and Definitional Agreement in Family Planning's "Demand" and "Need" Jargon.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
- Associations Between Income Status and Perceived Barriers to Using Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: An Exploratory Study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2022Article
- Associations between unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost and low-income patients' access to and experiences of contraceptive care in the United States, 2015-2019.Contraception: X · 2022Article
- Are rural Malawian women using their preferred contraceptive method and that of their male partners?Contraception · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFamily planning research has not adequately addressed women's preferences for different contraceptive methods and whether women's contraceptive experiences match their preferences.
methodsData were drawn from the Women's Healthcare Experiences and Preferences Study, an Internet survey of 1,078 women aged 18-55 randomly sampled from a national probability panel. Survey items assessed women's preferences for contraceptive methods, match between methods preferred and used, and perceived reasons for mismatch. We estimated predictors of contraceptive preference with multinomial logistic regression models.
resultsAmong women at risk for pregnancy who responded with their preferred method (n = 363), hormonal methods (non-LARC [long-acting reversible contraception]) were the most preferred method (34%), followed by no method (23%) and LARC (18%). Sociodemographic differences in contraception method preferences were noted (p-values <0.05), generally with minority, married, and older women having higher rates of preferring less effective methods, compared to their counterparts. Thirty-six percent of women reported preference-use mismatch, with the majority preferring more effective methods than those they were using. Rates of match between preferred and usual methods were highest for LARC (76%), hormonal (non-LARC) (65%), and no method (65%). The most common reasons for mismatch were cost/insurance (41%), lack of perceived/actual need (34%), and method-specific preference concerns (19%).
conclusionWhile preference for effective contraception was common among this sample of women, we found substantial mismatch between preferred and usual methods, notably among women of lower socioeconomic status and women using less effective methods. Findings may have implications for patient-centered contraceptive interventions.
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.