Prevalence and associated factors with contraceptive use 1 year after childbirth: a cross-sectional analysis of the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system
•,,,,.
...
Abstract
Background Contraceptive use after childbirth can reduce risk of unplanned pregnancy. This study estimated the prevalence of contraception use in the 1 year after childbirth. It further examined factors associated with use of the most and moderately effective forms of reversible contraception in the 1-year period after childbirth.
Methods This cross-sectional study used Phase 8 data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) (2016–2020) in the USA (N=194 032). Prevalence, overall and by type, was estimated nationally, by state and by age. Multinomial logistic regression models estimated associations with the most and moderately effective forms of reversible contraception (vs non-use). The most effective reversible contraception consisted of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC); moderately effective reversible contraception was a combined category of the injection, pill, patch, vaginal ring and diaphragm.
Results Moderately effective reversible contraception was the most common method used (24.8%) followed by no contraception (23.9%) and then use of the most effective reversible contraception (17.0%). Variation by age and state in LARC use was demonstrated. Having had a postpartum visit was the factor most strongly associated with LARC use in the 1 year after childbirth (adjusted OR (aOR): 4.96, 95% CI: 4.91 to 5.01). In contrast, being married at the time of the survey was the factor most strongly associated with use of moderately effective reversible contraception (aOR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.54 to 1.56).
Conclusion Higher prevalence of no contraception or less effective forms of birth control presents an opportunity for greater LARC adoption, if preferred, especially at the postpartum visit.
What is already known on this topic
Contraceptive counselling and use of effective contraceptives in the first year after childbirth can reduce unintended pregnancies.
What this study adds
Moderately effective contraception followed by no contraceptive use was more frequently reported than the most effective reversible form of contraception. Variation by age and state was evident, which has implications for clinical practice and policy surrounding family planning services. The postpartum visit presents an opportunity for shared decision-making, education and increased access to the most effective forms of reversible contraception.
How this study might affect research, practice or policy
The higher prevalence of no contraception and higher use of less effective contraceptives compared with the most effective types presents an opportunity for greater long-acting reversible contraception education and adoption, if preferred, at the postpartum visit.
Introduction
In the USA, access to and use of affordable or no-cost contraception in the first year after childbirth is a critical component of post-delivery care.1 In the USA, where disparities in contraceptive access persist, healthcare providers play a key role in reducing unplanned pregnancies by educating patients about their postpartum contraceptive options and by empowering them to manage their fertility.1 2
Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), such as intrauterine devices and the subdermal etonogestrel implant, are the most effective reversible contraceptive options available, with <1 pregnancy per 100 women in a year with typical use.3 Moderately effective contraceptives include short-acting reversible contraceptives such as injectables, pills, patches, rings and diaphragms4; these methods are associated with 6–12 pregnancies per 100 women in a year with typical use. Failure rates for typical use of less (ie, condoms, sponge, cervical cap) and least effective (ie, spermicide, natural family planning, withdrawal) methods are between 12% and 28%.1 5
The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of contraception use in the USA up to 1-year post-childbirth; and to examine factors associated with use of the most and moderately effective forms of reversible contraception among individuals up to 1-year post-delivery.
Methods
Design
This cross-sectional study used secondary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS). PRAMS is a state-level, population-based surveillance survey on maternal behaviours, attitudes and experiences before, during and shortly after pregnancy. Only individuals with a recorded live birth are eligible and contacted for inclusion. Participating local health departments across the USA collect data via a mixed-mode mail/telephone survey (self-report) and information gleaned from birth certificates for submission to the CDC. The CDC cleans, cumulates and weights the data to derive a nationally representative sample of all individuals who delivered a live born infant in the USA (‘the incident pregnancy’). For a complete description of the PRAMS methodology and access to the data, see Shulman et al.4 Patient and public involvement was not appropriate for this study.
For the current study, PRAMS Phase 8 data were used. These data cover live births from January 2016 through December 2020 and include 44 states as well as the District of Columbia, New York City and Puerto Rico. Inclusion criteria for this study were (1) aged between 18 and 44 years at the time of the incident pregnancy, (2) self-reported that they were not pregnant at the time of the survey and (3) a response to survey item 45: ‘What kinds of birth control are you or your husband or partner using now to keep from getting pregnant?’ or reported that they ‘had my tubes tied’ or were ‘not having sex’ in response to item 44: ‘What are your reasons or your husband’s or partner’s reasons for not doing anything to keep from getting pregnant now?’. A total of 194 032 participants met these criteria.
Key variables
Current contraceptive method
The primary outcome variable was type of contraceptive method—focused on use versus non-use—as reported at PRAMS survey completion which extends 3–12 months after giving birth. Six types of contraceptive groups were derived from responses to item 45: ‘What kind of birth control are you or your husband or partner using now to keep from getting pregnant?’ These contraceptive types included: (1) most effective reversible (ie, LARCs), (2) most effective permanent (ie, sterilisation via vasectomy or tubal ligation, including ‘tubes tied’ responses from item 44), (3) moderately effective (ie, pills, ring, patch, injectables, diaphragm), (4) less effective (ie, condoms, sponge or cervical cap use extracted from qualitative responses listed in the ‘other’ option of item 44), (5) least effective (ie, withdrawal, natural family planning) and (6) no contraceptive use (ie, ‘no’ response to all other contraceptive types listed above or ‘I am not having sex’ response from item 44 or item 45). Respondents who reported use of multiple forms of contraception were categorised into the most effective method reported.
Demographic characteristics
including mother’s age at delivery, marital status, education, race and ethnicity, mode of delivery (C-section or vaginal), and if the mother received support from women, infants and children were determined by information from the infant’s birth certificate. Household income, ever experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), if the incident pregnancy was intentional, unintentional or mistimed, and if respondents used birth control before the incident pregnancy were gathered from the PRAMS questionnaire. Regional access to contraception was assessed using urbanicity and state of birth, as reported in the PRAMS analytic file. All demographic variables were categorical.
Clinical characteristics
Included maternal comorbidities or delivery complications reported in the PRAMS questionnaire or from birth certificate data. Specifically, this study examined (1) body mass index (BMI) (ie, underweight, normal, overweight, obese); (2) type 1 or type 2 diabetes before the incident pregnancy and/or gestational diabetes diagnosed during the incident pregnancy, (3) high blood pressure or hypertension in the 3 months before the incident pregnancy, and/or pre-eclampsia or eclampsia during the incident pregnancy, (4) postpartum depression in the incident pregnancy and (5) smoking cigarettes or (6) drinking alcohol in the last 3 months of the incident pregnancy. Responses were binary (0=no, 1=yes).
Healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU), used as a proxy for point-of-access to contraception and counselling, included respondents’ health insurance status at the time of survey (‘now’), which was recoded into the following mutually exclusive categories: (1) employer-sponsored insurance, (2) Medicaid, (3) no insurance, (4) multiple and/or other insurance types. Additional indicators included whether the respondent received prenatal care in the first trimester, whether they attended a postpartum check-up defined as ‘a regular check-up a woman has about 4–6 weeks after she gives birth’ and whether they delivered in a state offering Medicaid reimbursement for immediate postpartum LARCs at the time of birth.6 Responses were binary (0=no, 1=yes).
Analysis
Analyses were conducted in SAS Viya (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA) to account for the survey design and to adjust for sampling bias using the weighting variable included in the PRAMS dataset. All reported results use weighted analyses. Descriptive statistics described the sample and χ2 tests of significance with Rao-Scott correction (two-tailed, α=0.05) assessed differences in sample characteristics by contraceptive users and non-users.
Estimation of prevalence was determined as follows: the number of respondents using contraception divided by the number of respondents in the analytical sample; prevalence was assessed for the overall national sample and by state and age group (18–29, 30–39, 40–44 years).
Multinomial logistic regression was used to estimate associations with contraceptive type, focused on the most and moderately effective forms of reversible contraception. Adjusted models included socio-demographic, clinical characteristics and HCRU. Interactions were not examined. Only respondents with complete data were included in the regression analyses (unweighted N=147 103; weighted N=7 751 731).
Results
Sample description
The weighted sample included 9 787 137 respondents. Most respondents were married, between 25 and 34 years of age, had greater than high school education, lived in an urban setting and were non-Hispanic white (table 1). Comparisons between contraceptive users and non-users show that demographic and socioeconomic factors were associated with contraceptive use. White, higher-income individuals and those unexposed to IPV were more likely to use contraception after the incident pregnancy. Previous use of birth control, an unintended or mistimed incident pregnancy and delivery by C-section was also associated with a higher likelihood of contraceptive use. Rural residency and previous live births were associated with increased contraceptive use.
Table 1
•
Socio-demographic characteristics reported at the time of survey completion, overall and by use versus non-use of contraception in the 1-year post-childbirth period, weighted
Prevalence of contraceptive use
Weighted prevalence estimates indicate that the most common contraceptive method used were moderately effective types (24.8%; 95% CI: 24.49% to 25.11%), followed by no contraceptives (23.9%; 95% CI: 23.63% to 24.23%). Most effective reversible contraceptives had the next largest prevalence (17.0%; 95% CI: 16.72% to 17.26%), followed by less effective contraceptives (16.8%; 95% CI: 16.48% to 17.02%) and the most effective permanent contraceptive (11.1%; 95% CI: 10.85% to 11.30%). The least effective contraceptives were also the least commonly used type (6.5%; 95% CI: 6.28% to 6.63%). See online supplemental data table 1 for estimates stratified by age group.
Contraceptive use varied by age (figure 1). No contraception use remained the most common category across all age groups, except for 18–29 years old where a greater proportion used moderately effective contraceptives (29.1%). Respondents 18–29 years of age chose the most effective reversible contraceptives more often than their older age counterparts. Sterilisation use increased with age. Less effective contraceptives were most common among respondents 30–39 years (17.8%), followed by 18–29 years old (16.0%) and 40–44 years old (13.2%). The least effective contraceptives remained the least prevalent across all age groups.
Prevalence of contraception use in the 1-year period after childbirth, overall and by age.
Contraceptive prevalence by state reveals significant regional variation (figure 2). Prevalence of the most effective reversible contraceptives was highest in Oregon (28.3%) and Utah (28.1%), while New Jersey (9.6%) and Puerto Rico (8.2%) had the lowest prevalence. Puerto Rico exhibited a very high prevalence of the most effective permanent contraceptive (28.9%) while New York City had one of the lowest (5.3%). West Virginia (34.5%) and Mississippi (35.8%) had the highest use of moderately effective contraceptives, compared with lower prevalence in Alaska (19.4%) and Puerto Rico (14.9%). Finally, New York City had the highest proportion of contraceptive non-users (34.0%) while Utah had one of the lowest (15.1%).
Prevalence of contraceptive methods by state 1-year period post-delivery weighted (N=9 787 137).
Multivariable associations with contraceptive types
Compared with contraceptive non-users, having had a postpartum visit was the variable most strongly associated with use of most effective reversible contraceptives (adjusted OR (aOR): 4.96, 95% CI: 4.91 to 5.01) and being married was the variable most strongly associated with use of moderately effective reversible contraception (aOR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.54 to 1.56) (table 2). Respondents with one or more previous live births were more likely to use the most effective reversible contraceptives (aOR=1.57, 95% CI: 1.56 to 1.58) and moderately effective methods (aOR=1.25, 95% CI: 1.24 to 1.26) compared with women with no previous live births. Among black/African American versus white respondents and those experiencing IPV versus no IPV, there was a decrease in the likelihood of using the most effective reversible methods (aOR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.67 to 0.68; aOR=0.68=3, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.64; respectively) and moderately effective contraceptives (aOR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.67; aOR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.41, respectively). Asian respondents were less likely to use the most effective reversible contraceptives (aOR=0.43, 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.44) and slightly more likely to use moderately effective methods (aOR=1.01, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.02) compared with white respondents. Hispanic respondents were more likely to use the most effective reversible methods (aOR=1.58; 95% CI: 1.56 to 1.59) than non-Hispanic respondents. Respondents with a BMI of 30 or above (‘obese’) had an increased likelihood of using the most effective reversible methods (aOR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.28 to 1.30) compared with individuals with ‘normal’ BMI. Similarly, hypertensive respondents were more likely to use most effective reversible contraceptives (aOR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.14) and slightly less likely to use moderately effective methods (aOR=0.98, 95% CI: 0.97 to 0.99). Respondents who reported drinking alcohol in the last 3 months of pregnancy had an increased likelihood of using the most effective reversible contraceptives (aOR=1.21, 95% CI: 1.2 to 1.21), whereas smoking was associated with a decreased likelihood (aOR=0.92, 95% CI: 0.91 to 0.93).
Table 2
•
Multinomial logistic regression results examining contraceptive types ordered by effectiveness compared with no contraceptive use, weighted sample (N=7 751 731)
Discussion
This cross-sectional study estimated the prevalence of contraception use in the first year after childbirth among individuals who gave birth to a live infant in the USA between 2016 and 2020, a period marked by changes in federal and state policies affecting contraception access (eg, Affordable Health Care Act, state-level Medicaid expansion and policy changes) and adoption of professional and quality guidelines (eg, National Quality Foundation 2904).7 It further estimated associations with use of the most and moderately effective forms of reversible contraception in the 1-year period after delivery.
The findings regarding the higher prevalence of no contraception or less effective contraceptives present an opportunity for greater LARC adoption overall, if preferred, and particularly among individuals over age 29 years who were less likely to use these forms of contraceptives. While the choice of contraceptive is a multifactorial decision based on patient and physician perceptions, experiences and personal preferences,6 8 9 this study found that attending a postpartum visit was most strongly associated with LARC use, elevating the importance of patient education and shared decision-making during the postpartum visit. A systematic review found that patient preferences for contraceptive counselling include comprehensive and personalised information, respect for patient autonomy, positive provider-patient relationships and diverse preferences for the context in which counselling occurs (eg, setting and prenatal and postpartum timing).10 Ensuring that individuals can attend their postpartum visit, via automated scheduling and tailored messages, may be critically important as well.11
Variation in the use of most effective reversible and moderately effective contraceptives by state highlights the need for tailored policy and practice changes to address disparities in contraceptive access and counselling. Despite the higher up-front acquisition costs, several studies have reported that LARCs are the most cost-effective and cost-saving form of contraception available.12–16 Access to and availability of postpartum contraceptives play a crucial role in their utilisation.10 17 Study findings regarding state-level variation in contraceptive use may reflect differences in funding and programmes for family planning services. Research shows that LARC device unavailability and the cost or reimbursement of devices contribute to access barriers affecting both patients and providers.17–22 Other studies have found that policies that increase insurance coverage improve access to and lead to greater use of contraceptive services, particularly for LARC methods.23 24 Policy and practice changes that address barriers beyond the immediate postpartum period, like facilitators and clinical protocols enabling same-day provision of methods,7 25 can improve access for all.
Strengths and limitations
This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design means that the reported associations are exploratory and correlational; however, a strength of the study was the large and nationally representative sample which increases generalisability, statistical power and provides a more accurate estimate of associations across diverse subpopulations, reducing the likelihood that the observed relationships are due to chance or sampling bias. Second, key confounding factors, particularly those influencing medical professionals’ decisions to recommend certain contraceptives, were not measured or assessed. Relatedly, the survey methodology did not use a standard timeframe for assessing contraceptive use; respondents were asked if they were ‘doing anything now to keep from getting pregnant’, which could have been 3–12 months post partum.4 Furthermore, PRAMS did not collect data on the nature of contraceptive counselling received, the methods offered but declined and preferences, making it difficult to discern whether the variation in contraceptive use reflects personal preferences, medical norms or access issues. This study also found a high proportion (89.4%) of respondents attended a postpartum visit, which contrasts with studies reporting that as much as 13–45% of individuals miss their postpartum visit,26 27 thus potentially reflecting a sample in the current study more prone to healthcare-seeking behaviour. Inherent limitations of survey research, such as self-reporting and recall bias, data entry errors and non-response bias, must be acknowledged with these data. The CDC takes steps to mitigate these issues through weighted sampling and quality control measures, including data entry verification, supervisor monitoring of telephone surveys and maintaining low non-response rates (1–2% overall, 6% for income-related questions).4 Despite these limitations, the study findings have important implications for strategies to increase the use of the most effective contraceptives among individuals in the 1-year period post-delivery. Future studies that replicate this study with a post-COVID-19 sample are warranted as research suggests the pandemic decreased postpartum visit attendance despite an increase in telehealth visit options.28 29
Conclusions
This study highlights the opportunity that postpartum contraceptive counselling presents for increasing use of the most effective forms of reversible contraception. Education and shared decision-making between patients and providers about contraceptive options available during the postpartum visit is an important strategy for reducing unplanned pregnancies in the first year after delivery.
Contributors: All authors contributed to the study’s design, contributed to the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript. SC conceived of the study, sought and was granted data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, oversaw the study’s completion and revised the manuscript. SH and RI analysed the data, ensured coding was accurate, formatted all tables and figures, and revised the manuscript. ANC designed the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, table shells, monitored data analysis and drafted and revised the manuscript. VPP oversaw the study’s completion, sought organisational approvals, executed a protocol amendment and updated the analysis plan, drafted and revised the manuscript for intellectual contribution, and was responsible for all correspondence. VPP is the guarantor and corresponding author.
Funding: This study was funded by Organon & Co.
Competing interests: SC is a former employee of Organon & Co. VPP, SH and RI are employees of Organon & Co. ANC was provided financial support from Organon & Co for developing the study protocol, interpreting the results, writing and submitting the manuscript, and reimbursement for article processing charges.
Patient and public involvement: Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.
Data availability statement
Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. The datasets supporting this study are available in the PRAMS analytical file maintained by the CDC. Data access procedures are available at https://www.cdc.gov/prams/researchers.htm.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication:
Not applicable.
Ethics approval:
This study was conducted using publicly available, de-identified data and did not involve human subjects research as defined by the United States Department of Health and Human Services regulations (45 CFR 46). Therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) Working Group and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for their contributions to the data collection and management efforts that made this research possible. The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the CDC or the PRAMS Working Group.
Curtis KM, Nguyen AT, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2024. MMWR Recomm Rep2024; 73:1–77.
Thiel de Bocanegra H, Chang R, Howell M, et al. Interpregnancy intervals: impact of postpartum contraceptive effectiveness and coverage. Am J Obstet Gynecol2014; 210:311.
Shulman HB, D’Angelo DV, Harrison L, et al. The pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS): Overview of design and methodology. Am J Public Health2018; 108:1305–13.
Robinet L, Jeffredo A, Clesse C, et al. Factors influencing contraceptive choice during the postpartum period: A qualitative systematic Review. J Midwifery Womens Health2023; 68:265–86.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Long-acting reversible contraception implants and intrauterine devices. Practice bulletin no. 186: long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. 2017;
Mann AK, Khoury A, McCartt P, et al. Multilevel influences on providers’ delivery of contraceptive services: A qualitative thematic analysis. Womens Health Rep2022; 3:491–9.
Paul R, Huysman BC, Maddipati R, et al. Familiarity and acceptability of long-acting reversible contraception and contraceptive choice. Am J Obstet Gynecol2020; 222.
Clapp MA, Ray A, Liang P, et al. Postpartum primary care engagement using default scheduling and tailored messaging: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open2024; 7.
Marmett B, Guaranha D, Carvalho A de, et al. Cost savings and effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) on the prevention of pregnancy in adolescents: A systematic review. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol2024; 37:11–7.
LARC Guideline Development Group. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Hum Reprod2008; 23:1338–45.
National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Long-acting reversible contraception: the effective and appropriate use of long-acting reversible contraception. London, RCOG Press (National Institute for Health and 309 Clinical Excellence: Guidance)2005;
Trussell J, Henry N, Hassan F, et al. Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception2013; 87:154–61.
Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, et al. The contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol2010; 203:115.
Holden EC, Lai E, Morelli SS, et al. Ongoing barriers to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception: a physician survey. Contracept Reprod Med2018; 3.
Moniz MH, Chang T, Heisler M, et al. Inpatient postpartum long-acting reversible contraception and sterilization in the United States, 2008–2013. Obstet Gynecol2017; 129:1078–85.
Natavio M, Blotky E, Van Horn CM, et al. Availability of long-acting reversible contraceptives in Los Angeles county clinics through a medicaid state plan amendment program. Contraception2018; 98:471–5.
Perkins JK, James S, Mazza D, et al. General practitioners’ views and experiences of postpartum contraception counselling and provision: a qualitative-descriptive study. Med J Aust2024; 221:381–5.
Castleberry NM, Stark L, Schulkin J, et al. Implementing best practices for the provision of long-acting reversible contraception: a survey of obstetrician-gynecologists. Contraception2019; 100:123–7.
Bennett WL, Chang H-Y, Levine DM, et al. Utilization of primary and obstetric care after medically complicated pregnancies: an analysis of medical claims data. J Gen Intern Med2014; 29:636–45.
Bryant AS, Haas JS, McElrath TF, et al. Predictors of compliance with the postpartum visit among women living in healthy start project areas. Matern Child Health J2006; 10:511–6.
Bellerose M, Steenland MW. Association between the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and national disparities in postpartum visit attendance. Obstet Gynecol2023; 141:170–2.
Diamond-Smith N, Logan R, Adler A, et al. Prenatal and postpartum care during the COVID-19 pandemic: An increase in barriers from early to mid-pandemic in the United States. Birth2024; 51:450–8.
