Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37088123›Full record

ArticleContraception2023

Contraceptive services in Oregon's state-funded network during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Maria I Rodriguez, Megan Skye, Kaitlin Schrote, Rachel Linz, Nisreen Pedhiwala, Abigail Liberty, Megan Fuerst, Alison B Edelman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contraception, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria I RodriguezDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; Center for Reproductive Health Equity, Portland, OR, USA. Electronic address: rodrigma@ohsu.edu.
Megan SkyeDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Kaitlin SchroteDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Rachel LinzReproductive Health Program, Oregon Health Authority, Portland, OR, USA.
Nisreen PedhiwalaReproductive Health Program, Oregon Health Authority, Portland, OR, USA.
Abigail LibertyDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Megan FuerstDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Alison B EdelmanDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA; Center for Reproductive Health Equity, Portland, OR, USA.
Oregon Health & Science University · USOregon Health Authority · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand how changes to in-person health care during the COVID pandemic impacted contraceptive use in Oregon's state-funded network. STUDY

designA retrospective cohort of 245,600 visits (virtual and in-person) among 70,295 women presenting to publicly funded family planning clinics in Oregon between January 2019 and June 2021. Data were abstracted from clinic records and restricted to visits of patients identifying as female, 12-51 years old, not using sterilization as a method. Contraception was grouped by effectiveness Tier (Tier 1: intrauterine device, implants; Tier 2: progestin injectable, pill/patch/ring). Multivariable logistic regression predicted the use of contraception by stage of the COVID pandemic which corresponded to service availability (prepandemic, acute: nonemergency services halted, subacute: restricted services), patient demographics, including insurance type, and clinic and geospatial characteristics.

resultsOverall during the acute stage, people with visits were more likely to leave with a method of contraception odds ratios (OR) 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.57); however, it was significantly less likely to be a Tier 1 method (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74-0.91) as compared to prepandemic. This finding was particularly marked in rural areas (OR 0.69 [96% CI 0.58-0.83]) and among the publicly insured (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.80-0.94]).

conclusionsDemand for contraception increased during the acute phase of the COVID pandemic, and shifts in method mix from Tier 1 to Tier 2 methods occurred. Disparities in contraceptive access persisted for those in rural locations or with public insurance. IMPLICATIONS: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic are critical to informing our future emergency response. The need for family planning services increased during the public health emergency.

Indexed as

Contraceptive AgentsCOVID-19AdolescentAdultChildContraceptionFamily Planning ServicesFemaleHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedOregonPandemicsRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultContraceptive AgentsContraceptionCOVID-19Family planningLARC

Identifiers

PMID37088123
PMCPMC10122546
OpenAlexW4366750575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.