ArticleJournal of racial and ethnic health disparities2025
Racial/Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities of Contraceptive Preference-Use Match in the United States.
Article in Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine factors associated with a contraceptive preference-use match, defined as alignment between an individual's stated contraceptive preference and actual use, in the USA, with a focus on disparities across demographic and socioeconomic groups.
methodsThe population-based study used the 2022 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The key outcome was a match between contraceptive preference and actual use. Independent variables included demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate significant factors associated with contraceptive matches.
resultsOf a total of 12,154 participants, the most preferred contraceptive method was short-acting reversible contraception (SAC) (29.5%), followed by long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) (25.0%), permanent (19.1%), and other/barrier methods (17.4%). Approximately 81.0% of participants were contraceptive users, and the overall contraceptive preference-use match was 45.8%. LARC showed the highest match rate (49.0%), followed by other/barriers (46.7%), SAC (38.3%), and permanent methods (33.7%). While Black individuals had a higher match rate with permanent methods (OR 1.83), they had a lower match rate with LARC (OR 0.65) and SAC (OR 0.42). In contrast, participants aged 40-44 years had 1.61 times greater odds of LARC matches. Individuals with higher education levels also showed a greater match than those with less than a high school diploma.
conclusionsFindings highlight that racial/ethnic minorities and individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience a lower preference-use match of LARC and SAC, while individuals with low SES show greater matches for other/barrier methods. Addressing these disparities may enhance reproductive autonomy and equitable access to contraceptives.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41042456What 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.