Unintended Childbearing and Knowledge of Emergency Contraception in a Population-Based Survey of Postpartum Women
- 197 Downloads
We examined the relationship between unintended childbearing and knowledge of emergency contraception.
The Oregon Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is a population-based survey of postpartum women. We analyzed data from the 2001 PRAMS survey using logistic regression to assess the relationship between unintended childbearing and emergency contraception while controlling for maternal characteristics such as age, race/ethnicity, education, marital status, family income, and insurance coverage before pregnancy.
In 2001, 1,795 women completed the PRAMS survey (78.1% weighted response proportion). Of the women who completed the survey, 38.2% reported that their birth was unintended and 25.3% reported that they did not know about emergency contraception before pregnancy. Unintended childbearing was associated with a lack of knowledge of emergency contraception (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.00, 2.05) after controlling for marital status and age.
Women in Oregon who were not aware of emergency contraception before pregnancy were more likely to have had an unintended birth when their marital status and age were taken into account. Unintended birth was more likely among women who were young, unmarried, lower income, and uninsured. Given that emergency contraception is now available over-the-counter in the US to women who are 18 years of age or older, age- and culturally-appropriate public health messages should be developed to expand women’s awareness of, dispel myths around, and encourage appropriate use of emergency contraception as a tool to help prevent unintended pregnancy and birth.
KeywordsUnintended pregnancy Emergency contraception Postcoital contraception Pregnancy PRAMS
We thank Tina Kent for her work on Oregon PRAMS. We also thank the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for their support of Oregon PRAMS.
- 2.Brown S. S., & Eisenberg, L, Committee on Unintended Pregnancy, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine (1995). The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- 14.Hellerstedt, W. L., Pirie, P. L., Lando, H. A., Curry, S. J., McBride, C. M., Grothaus, L. C., & Nelson, J. C. (1998). Differences in preconceptional and prenatal behaviors in women with intended and unintended pregnancies. American Journal of Public Health, 88(4), 663–666.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Folic acid for the prevention of neural tube defects (1999) American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Genetics: Pediatrics, 104(2 Pt 1), 325–327.Google Scholar
- 26.Mills, A. (1984). Barrier contraception. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 11(3), 641–660.Google Scholar
- 29.Yuzpe, A. A. (1984). Postcoital contraception. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 11(3), 787–797.Google Scholar
- 30.von Hertzen, H., Piaggio, G., Ding, J., Chen, J., Song, S., Bartfai, G., Ng, E., Gemzell-Danielsson, K., Oyunbileg, A., Wu, S., Cheng, W., Ludicke, F., Pretnar-Darovec, A., Kirkman, R., Mittal, S., Khomassuridze, A., Apter, D., & Peregoudov, A. (2002). Low dose mifepristone and two regimens of levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: a WHO multicentre randomised trial. Lancet, 360(9348), 1803–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Plan B©: Questions and Answers, August 24, 2006, and August 24, 2006, updated December 14, 2006. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. food and drug administration, Center for drug evaluation and research, at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA20060824.htm and http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 40.Delbanco, S. F., Stewart, F. H., Koenig, J. D., Parker, M. L., Hoff, T., & McIntosh, M. (1998). Are we making progress with emergency contraception? Recent findings on American adults and health professionals. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 53(5 Suppl 2), 242–246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Oregon behavior risk surveillance system 2000 results. Portland, Oregon: Department of Human Services, Health Services, Center for Health Statistics and Vital Records, at: http://www.dhs.state.or.us/dhs/ph/chs/brfs/00/fepill.shtml. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 49.Beck, L. F., Morrow, B., Lipscomb, L. E., Johnson, C. H., Gaffield, M. E., Rogers, M., & Gilbert, B. C. (2002). Prevalence of selected maternal behaviors and experiences, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 1999. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 51(2), 1–27.Google Scholar
- 58.Suellentrop, K., Morrow, B., Williams, L., & D’Angelo, D. (2006). Monitoring progress toward achieving Maternal and Infant Healthy People 2010 objectives–19 states, Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), 2000–2003. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 55(9), 1–11.Google Scholar
- 60.US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Healthy People 2010: Chapter 9: Family Planning. Washington, D.C.; 2000, at http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/tracking/od09.htm. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 61.Oregon PRAMS First Year Report. (1998–1999). Portland, Oregon: Oregon Department of Human Services, Health Services, Office of Family Health, Portland, Oregon; 2000, at http://oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pnh/prams/9899/ar9899.shtml#append. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 62.Hodge, J. G., Gostin, L. O., with the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Advisory Committee. (2004). Public health practice vs. research: A report for public health practitioners including cases and guidance for making distinctions. Atlanta, Georgia, at www.cste.org/pdffiles/newpdffiles/CSTEPHResRptHodgeFinal.2.24.04.pdf. Accessed 06/07/06.Google Scholar
- 66.Rao, C. R. (1973). Linear statistical inference and its application (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley, Inc.Google Scholar
- 68.Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
- 71.The emergency contraception website. Princeton, NJ: The Office of Population Research, at http://ec.princeton.edu/. Accessed 03/18/07; Back Up Your Birth Control. New York, NY: Institute for Reproductive Health Access, NARAL Pro-Choice New York, at http://www.backupyourbirthcontrol.org/. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 75.Lowell, A., & Mobley, A. (2002). Emergency contraception promotion project report. Portland, Oregon: Population Services International, Portland, Oregon.Google Scholar
- 76.ACOG news release: ACOG Steps up efforts to get emergency contraception to women. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, at http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr05-08-06-1.cfm . Accessed 03/18/07.
- 77.Plan B© Repackaged for over-the-counter sales in pharmacies spurs grassroots effort to ensure women have access to this safe, effective birth control. Washington, DC: NARAL Pro-Choice America, at http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/news/press-releases/2006/pr11132006_planb.html. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 78.Whitehead, N., Shulman, H., & The PRAMS Working Group (1998). Mode of administration bias in a mixed mode survey. Maternal, infant, and child health epidemiology workshop: at http://www.uic.edu/sph/dataskills/liveconf/slideshows/ser/SER1/tsld001.htm. Accessed 03/18/07.
- 80.Cheng, L., Gülmezoglu, A. M., Van Oel, C. J., Piaggio, G., Ezcurra, E., Van Look, P. F. A. (2004). Interventions for emergency contraception. The Cochrane Database of systematic reviews, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001324. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001324.pub2.Google Scholar
- 83.Raine, T. R., Harper, C. C., Rocca, C. H., Fischer, R., Padian, N., Klausner, J. D., & Darney, P. D. (2005). Direct access to emergency contraception through pharmacies and effect on unintended pregnancy and STIs: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(1), 54–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar