ArticleWomen's health (London, England)
Contraceptive access and use of long-acting reversible contraceptives during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
Article in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChanges in access to healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted individuals' access to contraceptive care, including long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), which require ⩾1 visit for insertion and/or removal.
objectivesThis study aimed to describe the utilization and accessibility of contraceptive services and contraceptive methods, including LARCs, during the COVID-19 pandemic and understand individuals' preferred approaches for accessing contraceptive care and prescriptions in the future.
designCross-sectional study.
methodsQuantitative data were collected from US individuals assigned females at birth at risk for pregnancy and seeking contraceptive methods for pregnancy prevention (aged 18-49 years) via an online survey fielded in 2022. Measures included: contraceptive methods used pre-pandemic, during the pandemic, current, and planned for the future; the impact of the pandemic on LARC insertions/removals; site of care for contraceptive counseling, prescribing, and filling across time periods.
resultsAnalyses included 1878 respondents; mean age = 30.8 years, 86.2% cisgender female; 64.5% non-Hispanic White. The most common forms of contraception used by respondents pre-pandemic, during, and currently were the pill (31.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 29.0%-33.2%), 31.3% (29.2%-33.4%), 28.3% (26.3%-30.4%)), male condom (10.9% (9.5%-12.3%), 12.8% (11.4%-14.4%), 13.7% (12.2%-15.3%)), intrauterine device (IUD) (8.5% (7.3%-9.8%), 9.6% (8.3%-11.0%), 10.2% (8.9%-11.6%)), implant (4.9% (4.0%-5.9%), 4.2% (3.4%-5.2%), 4.6% (3.8%-5.7%)), shot (4.8% (3.9%-5.9%), 4.3% (3.5%-5.3%), 4.0% (3.2%-5.0%)), and withdrawal (3.9% (3.1%-4.9%), 4.2% (3.4%-5.2%), 6.0% (5.0%-7.1%)), respectively. The use of these methods was consistent across time periods. Of respondents who wanted a LARC inserted (
conclusionDespite the consistency in the contraceptive methods used across time periods, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the way in which individuals received contraceptive services, particularly those seeking LARC services, which require in-person visits for insertion and removal. As we move out of the pandemic, special care should be paid to ensuring prompt access to individuals' preferred choice of contraceptive services.
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.