ArticlePloS one2023
The effect of contraceptive access reform on privately insured patients: Evidence from Delaware Contraceptive Access Now.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medicaid reimbursement policies for long-acting reversible contraceptives immediately postpartum: A systematic literature review.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
- What Happened in Delaware Following a Statewide Contraceptive Initiative?The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
- Changes in contraceptive method use, access, and experiences of care during a statewide contraceptive initiative.Contraception · 2025Article
- Examining the impact of Medicaid payments for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception on the mental health of low-income mothers.Health services research · 2024Article
- Contraceptive access reform and abortion: Evidence from Delaware.Health services research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany states are implementing comprehensive programs aimed at reducing persistent barriers to contraceptive care. Evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is essential for practice improvement and policy development.
objectiveTo evaluate changes in the probability of initiating a contraceptive method by women with employer sponsored insurance after implementation of Delaware Contraceptive Access Now (DelCAN), a statewide initiative that aimed to increase access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsWe used a difference-in-differences design to examine contraceptive initiation rates. Data came from IBM Marketscan and covered women age 15-44 enrolled in employer sponsored insurance. The primary outcome was insertion of a LARC, both in the overall study population and in the immediate postpartum (IPP) setting. Secondary analysis examined changes to other contraceptive method types.
resultsThe cohort of 4,550,459 enrollees generated a sample of 11,888,837 person-years and 615,670 childbirth hospitalizations. Difference-in-differences estimates suggested that DelCAN was associated with a 0.3 percentage point (95% CI [0.2, 0.5], p<0.001) increase in the LARC insertion rate in the overall study population and a 0.4 percentage point increase (95% CI [0.2, 0.6], p<0.001) in the percent of births adopting IPP LARC. Associations between DelCAN and LARC insertion appeared stronger for adolescents compared to older women. Results for other method types were less consistent.
conclusionsA comprehensive statewide program was associated with increased LARC insertion rates among enrollees with employer sponsored insurance. Understanding the effect of these programs is critical for on-going policy development for states engaged in contraceptive access reform.
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.