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
. 2019 Oct 18;19(1):120.
doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0821-3.

Association between the use of free-of-charge intrauterine devices and a history of induced abortion: a retrospective study

Affiliations

Association between the use of free-of-charge intrauterine devices and a history of induced abortion: a retrospective study

Sabina Ulbricht et al. BMC Womens Health. .

Abstract

Background: To determine whether use of intrauterine device (IUD) is influenced by a history of induced abortion and the type of contraceptives used until costs are covered.

Methods: We analyzed data from 301 female residents in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, an economically challenged community. The women, aged between 20 and 35 years, were entitled to receive unemployment benefits, and had access to free-of-charge oral contraceptives, ring or IUD. Cross-sectional data were analyzed using logistic regression.

Results: There were 112 (37.2%) women with a history of induced abortion, and 46 (15.3%) reported exclusively using less effective contraceptives (e.g. condoms). In a univariate logistic regression, use of an IUD was associated with a history of having had an induced abortion. Furthermore, uptake of an IUD was associated with women who had, until costs were covered, exclusively choice to use less effective contraceptives (OR = 3.281, 95% CI: 1.717; 6.273). Both associations remained significant in a multivariate model.

Conclusions: Free contraceptives provided to women receiving unemployment benefits may increase the use of IUDs, especially among those with a history of an induced abortion and those using less effective contraceptives.

Keywords: Abortion; Contraception; Family planning; Social welfare; Unintended pregnancy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Bexhell H, Guthrie K, Cleland K, Trussell J. Unplanned pregnancy and contraceptive use in Hull and East Yorkshire. Contraception. 2016;93(3):233–235. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.10.004. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sedgh G, Singh S, Hussain R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plan. 2014;45(3):301–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00393.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Restricted access to abortion violates human rights, precludes reproductive justice, and demands a public health intervention; 2015. http://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statement....
    1. Jones RK, Jerman J. Population group abortion rates and lifetime incidence of abortion: United States, 2008-2014. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(12):1904–1909. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304042. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rasch V, Gammeltoft T, Knudsen LB, Tobiassen C, Ginzel A, Kempf L. Induced abortion in Denmark: effect of socio-economic situation and country of birth. Eur J Pub Health. 2008;18(2):144–149. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckm112. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances