ArticleCMAJ open
Household income and contraceptive methods among female youth: a cross-sectional study using the Canadian Community Health Survey (2009-2010 and 2013-2014).
Article in CMAJ open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Universal Free Contraception Coverage Policy, Out-of-Pocket Payments, and Costs.JAMA health forum · 2026Article
- Contraceptive practices in Québec in relation to immigration: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the Québec Population Health Survey.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- Pregnancy and family planning choices of birthing people in the Parent and Child assistance Program (PCAP).BMC women's health · 2026Article
- Social and socioeconomic determinants of health and contraceptive decision-making among women: a cross-sectional study from southeastern Iran.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Maternal sociodemographic characteristics of short and long interpregnancy intervals in Japan: an analysis using national birth data.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Universal Pharmacare and Contraceptive Dispensations Among Youth.JAMA pediatrics · 2025Article
- Effect of universal no-cost coverage on use of long-acting reversible contraception and all prescription contraception: population based, controlled, interrupted time series analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Young researchers' reflections on workshops with youth to develop research recruitment materials.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Newcomer youth's access to contraception care in Canada: A scoping review of qualitative evidence.PloS one · 2025Article
- Summer temperature and emergency room visits due to urinary tract infection in South Korea: a national time-stratified case-crossover study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Time trends in contraceptive prescribing in UK primary care 2000-2018: a repeated cross-sectional study.BMJ sexual & reproductive health · 2022Article
- Trends in Socioeconomic Inequalities in Breast Cancer Incidence Among Women in Canada.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow socioeconomic status is one of many barriers that may limit access to family planning services. We aimed to examine the relation between household income and contraceptive methods among female youth in Canada.
methodsOur study population included sexually active females aged 15-24 who were trying to avoid pregnancy. We used cross-sectional data from the 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey to compare household income and other sociodemographic covariates for those using oral contraceptives, injectable contraceptives, condoms or a dual method (condoms plus oral or injectable contraceptives).
resultsOf female youth at risk for unintended pregnancy, 59.2% reported using oral contraceptives, 29.0% used dual methods, 16.8% used condoms only, 2.5% used injectable contraceptives and 13.6% did not use contraception. In multiple regression models, lower annual household income (< $80 000) was associated with decreased use of oral contraceptives (relative risk [RR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.91) and dual methods (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71-0.91), increased use of condoms (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.11-1.67) and injectable contraceptives (RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.98-2.92), and a greater risk of contraceptive nonuse (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94-1.50).
interpretationWe found that lower household income was associated with decreased use of oral contraceptives and increased reliance on injectable contraceptives and condoms only. Young, low-income females may face barriers to accessing the full range of contraceptive methods available in Canada. Easier access to affordable contraception may decrease the number of female youth at risk for unintended pregnancy due to financial barriers.
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.