Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr;26(2):86-95.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2012.10.006. Epub 2012 Dec 31.

Long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents and young adults: patient and provider perspectives

Affiliations

Long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents and young adults: patient and provider perspectives

Megan L Kavanaugh et al. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2013 Apr.

Abstract

Study objective: To describe and explore provider- and patient-level perspectives regarding long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) for teens and young adults (ages 16-24).

Methods: Data collection occurred between June and December 2011. We first conducted telephone interviews with administrative directors at 20 publicly funded facilities that provide family planning services. At 6 of these sites, we conducted a total of 6 focus group discussions (FGDs) with facility staff and 48 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with facility clients ages 16-24.

Results: Staff in the FGDs did not generally equate being a teen with ineligibility for IUDs. In contrast to staff, one-quarter of the young women did perceive young age as rendering them ineligible. Clients and staff agreed that the "forgettable" nature of the methods and their duration were some of LARC's most significant advantages. They also agreed that fear of pain associated with both insertion and removal and negative side effects were disadvantages. Some aspects of IUDs and implants were perceived as advantages by some clients but disadvantages by others. Common challenges to providing LARC-specific services to younger patients included extra time required to counsel young patients about LARC methods, outdated clinic policies requiring multiple visits to obtain IUDs, and a perceived higher removal rate among young women. The most commonly cited strategy for addressing many of these challenges was securing supplementary funding to support the provision of these services to young patients.

Conclusion: Incorporating young women's perspectives on LARC methods into publicly funded family planning facilities' efforts to provide these methods to a younger population may increase their use among young women.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Client and staff perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of LARC methods, listed in descending order from most to least common within groups. Top four characteristics mentioned in client IDIs and staff FGDs are presented. Underlined characteristics represent agreement between clients and staff.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Challenges to providing LARCs to young women and strategies to combat these challenges, as identified by administrators and staff at lower rates of LARC provision facilities (challenges) and higher rates of LARC provision facilities (both challenges and strategies).

References

    1. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health. 2006;38(2):90–96. - PubMed
    1. Committee on Unintended Pregnancy . The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Insitutue of Medicine; Washington, DC: 1995.
    1. Finer LB. Unintended pregnancy among U.S. adolescents: Accounting for sexual activity. J. Adolesc. Health. 2010 Sep;47(3):312–314. - PubMed
    1. Frost JJ, Darroch JE, Remez L. Improving contraceptive use in the United States. Guttmacher Institute; New York: 2008. - PubMed
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1434–1438. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms