ArticleContraception2022
An intersectional analysis of contraceptive types chosen among sexual minority women: A nationally representative study.
Article in Contraception, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to use an intersectional approach in which race, insurance, care setting, and disclosure of sexual orientation to a provider are used to assess patterns of contraceptive use in sexual minority women. STUDY
designThis study analyzes cross-sectional data from the 2011-2019 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG). Sexual orientation of 21,075 respondents' data was used to investigate contraceptive use in sexual minority women, specifically lesbian and bisexual women, as compared to heterosexual women, controlling for variables such as race, age, and socioeconomic factors.
resultsBlack and Hispanic lesbian women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.39 confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.76 and aOR = 0.44 CI 0.23-0.82, respectively) and Hispanic and Other Race bisexual women use hormonal contraceptive methods less than their White lesbian and bisexual peers (aOR = 0.45 CI 0.29-0.69 and aOR = 0.43 CI 0.20-0.94). Care setting was not correlated with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (LARC; such as intra-uterine device, hormonal implants) or prescription-based hormonal methods (such as oral contraceptive pills, injectables, vaginal rings, and patches) in lesbian women (aOR = 2.92 CI 0.60-14.2 and aOR = 1.43 CI 0.47-4.38, respectively) or bisexual women (aOR = 0.90 CI 0.48-1.58 and aOR = 0.83 CI 0.37-1.86), but it was for straight women (aOR = 1.28 CI 1.03-1.59 and aOR = 0.68 CI 0.53-0.86). Similarly, insurance status did not correlate with contraceptive patterns in sexual minority women. Importantly, adjusting for nationally representative data did not impact the results; in other words, the odds ratios after adjusting yielded the same results as before adjustment.
conclusionsInsurance and care setting are important determinants of straight women's contraceptive use patterns with fewer effects seen among sexual minority women. These findings support previous work and indicate that known advantages of insurance coverage or use of public clinics may not positively impact sexual minority women as much as they do straight women. Provider awareness of sexual identity and sexual orientation is important for adequate contraceptive care. IMPLICATIONS: While prior research has presented findings on sexual minority women contraceptive use, to our knowledge there are limited studies that address the social and demographic implications for contraceptive use in this population.
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.