The impact of programs to increase contraceptive use among adult women: a review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies.

The rate of unintended pregnancy in the United States is among the highest in the industrialized world. (1) About half of all pregnancies, or nearly three million pregnancies each year, are unintended. These unintended pregnancies lead to 1.3 million abortions and 1.4 million unplanned births annually. (1)

Although people often associate unintended pregnancy with teenagers, rates are also high among older women. For example, in 2002, the estimated unintended pregnancy rate among women 20 or older was 39 per 1,000. * Among women aged 25-29 who had given birth during the previous five years, 16% had had a mistimed birth and an additional 10% had had an unwanted birth. (2) Among women aged 30-44 who had given birth during the previous five years, the proportions were 9% and 13%, respectively.

In addition, older women actually have many more unintended pregnancies than teenagers do, because the vast majority of women of childbearing age are 20 or older. For example, in 2000, an estimated 91% of all abortions were obtained by women 20 or older. (3) Similarly, estimates based on the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) suggest that women 20 or older had 84% of all unwanted births. ([dagger])

Given that most adult women are sexually active and are likely to remain so, the most promising method of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies would be to increase their use of effective contraception. This raises several very important questions: What is known about the impact of policies and interventions designed to increase contraceptive use and reduce unintended pregnancy among adult women? Which policies and interventions are effective? Which are not?

The family planning literature contains numerous studies of contraceptive effectiveness among women, (4) use of contraceptives generally (and use of particular methods), (2,5) and factors affecting contraceptive use and nonuse. (6-23) Many of these studies are based on public records (e.g., birth records) or on large, nationally representative surveys (e.g., the NSFG), and are basically demographic. While these studies are informative and helpful, they typically do not provide strong evidence for the impact of interventions designed to increase contraceptive use and thus do not answer the important questions above.

Much more relevant are studies that have attempted to measure the impact of policies and programs. Some of these studies have not used experimental designs, but have attempted to estimate the impact of changes in policies or programs or of other naturally occurring changes. For example, researchers attempted to measure the effects that Family PACT--a large, state-funded effort to increase the number of reproductive health care providers in California and to reduce the cost of reproductive health care services to low-income women--had on contraceptive use, pregnancies, abortions and births. (24) Because a good comparison group did not exist, the researchers had to make various assumptions about what women would have done had Family PACT not been implemented. These assumptions may have led to overestimates of the program's impact. More generally, studies without experimental or strong quasi-experimental designs cannot provide strong evidence of causation.

Consequently, to provide a better understanding of the impact of policies and programs on contraceptive use and pregnancy, the purpose of the current study was to identify and summarize studies that employed an experimental or strong quasi-experimental design to measure the impact of any kind of policy or intervention on adult contraceptive use or pregnancy.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria for this review were determined in part by the decision to exclude studies with particular features. For example, although interventions designed to prevent transmission of HIV and other STDs may increase condom use and reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancy, they are not included in this review for several reasons: The approaches used to reduce individuals' number of sexual partners, increase condom use, and promote STD testing and treatment are quite different from the approaches employed to increase use of contraceptives (particularly those requiring prescriptions); studies of policies and programs to prevent STDs typically do not measure the impact on overall contraceptive use; and the results of such studies have been summarized elsewhere. (25-27)

Similarly, interventions that strive to reduce adolescent pregnancy are not the focus of this review, because many programs for teenagers emphasize both abstinence and contraception, and are therefore quite different from most programs for adult women; moreover, studies of these interventions, too, have been summarized elsewhere. (28) Instead, this review focuses on interventions designed to increase overall contraceptive use among females of all ages, but especially adult women.

Consistent with these concerns, studies had to meet the following criteria to be included in this review. The policies or programs being examined had to have been implemented in the United States and designed to increase contraceptive use to prevent unintended pregnancy (i.e., not designed to increase condom use primarily to prevent STDs), and the samples had to include adults (as opposed to only teenagers), consist of at least 50 participants and have a mean or median age of at least 20. In addition, the research methods had to include a reasonably strong experimental or quasi-experimental design, incorporating both intervention and comparison groups and both pretest and posttest data collection, and assess intervention effects on some measure of contraceptive use or pregnancy. Finally, the study had to have been published in 1990 or thereafter; studies published before then would have less relevance for programmatic decisions today.

Three strategies were employed to find studies meeting these criteria. First, three databases (PubMed, PsyclNFO and POPLINE) were searched for articles published from January 1990 through December 2005, and the titles and abstracts of thousands of potentially relevant articles were reviewed. In addition, past issues of 16 pertinent journals * published during the same time frame were searched. Finally, more than 20 leaders in the field were sent preliminary lists of studies and asked for additional references of articles meeting the criteria above. Although the systematic search covered the period from 1990 to 2005, subsequently published articles were also included if they met the inclusion criteria and were found by the reviewer.

RESULTS

Only 11 studies were identified that met the specified criteria (Table 1, page 36). The study samples generally were ethnically and racially diverse, but quite young. In only two of the 11 samples was the mean or median age greater than 26.

The programs that were evaluated in the 11 studies fell into five categories: providing pregnancy and STD counseling during and after clinic enrollment (one study); providing contraceptive use in settings other than traditional family planning clinics (two studies); having women start hormonal contraceptive use during the medical visit ("quick start") rather than at the beginning of the next menses (two studies); providing advance supplies of emergency contraception (four studies); and implementing contraceptive reminder systems (two studies). Notably, none of the studies measured the impact of changes in any state or federal policies.

Pregnancy and STD Counseling

One study measured the impact of providing reproductive health counseling; it did not find significant effects on behavior. (29) In this randomized trial, 764 women were assigned to receive either pregnancy and STD prevention counseling or general health counseling (e.g., counseling on smoking, diet and exercise). Women in the intervention group received pregnancy and STD prevention counseling during their first clinic visit and again, either in person or by phone, two months later. Both counseling sessions were based on the principles of motivational interviewing, a technique that emphasizes the expression of empathy and the development of the client's self-efficacy to achieve her stated goals. Participants' contraceptive use was assessed at baseline and at two, eight and 12 months; occurrence of pregnancy and STDs was assessed at 12 months. Contraceptive use did not differ between the intervention and control groups at any of the three follow-up periods. Similarly, at 12 months, the groups did not differ in pregnancy or STD rates.

Services in Alternative Settings

Two studies measured the impact of providing initial family planning services in alternative settings. Both found positive effects on contraceptive use.

The first study examined the impact of providing initial family planning services at an STD clinic. (30) The program provided individual counseling about all contraceptive methods; supplied women with oral contraceptives, depot medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) or diaphragms either at the time of enrollment or during an early follow-up visit; reviewed with participants the services of reproductive health providers in the community; set up an appointment with the provider chosen by the patient; and followed up with the patient to be sure that she kept the appointment. A total of 877 women were randomly assigned to the program or to a control group that received customary information about contraception; both groups received condoms and a booklet with a list of providers. Participants were interviewed after four, eight and 12 months. Results indicated that at four and eight months, women in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to have received care from the provider, to be using effective contraceptives and to be using dual protection (both hormonal contraception and condoms). At 12 months, however, the two groups did not differ on these outcomes. Similarly, the proportion of participants who became pregnant did not differ between the intervention group and the control group (24% vs. 28%-not shown).

The second study, which used a quasi-experimental design, examined the short-term impact of offering contraceptive services to women in a correctional facility two weeks prior to their release versus referring women to services in the community within two weeks of their release. (31) Four weeks after release, 39% of the women who had been offered services during incarceration had initiated contraception, compared with only 4% of the women who had been offered referrals for postrelease services. After the researchers controlled for differences in women's background characteristics, the odds of beginning contraceptive use were 21 times as high among women offered contraceptive services while incarcerated as among women offered referrals for services in the community after release (not shown). Thus, providing contraceptive services in the correctional institution appeared to dramatically increase the initiation of contraceptive use, at least in the short term.

QuickStart

"When women are prescribed oral contraceptives, the traditional protocol has been for them to wait until their next menses to begin taking the pills. At their clinic visit, they may be encouraged to use another (generally less effective or less acceptable) type of contraceptive in the interim.

Two studies have measured the impact of starting hormonal contraception immediately ("quick start"); the first found positive effects in the short term, while the second failed to find significant effects at multiple time points.

In a quasi-experimental study, physicians instructed 250 patients to begin taking oral contraceptives either during or after the clinic visit. (32) A prospective analysis of telephone follow-up interviews revealed that women who took their first pill in the clinic were more likely to begin the second pack of pills than were those who took their first pill later (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-7.3-not shown).

The second study, a randomized trial involving only 60 women, measured the impact of women's starting use of the contraceptive patch immediately versus starting on the first day of their next period. (33) Both the intervention and the control groups received a phone call at six weeks to ensure that the second patch cycle had been initiated. Continuation rates were assessed during the first week of the fourth patch cycle. The continuation rates for the second cycle were 97% and 93% for the intervention and control groups, respectively; for the third cycle, continuation rates were 93% and 90%, respectively (not shown). The differences between groups were not significant, perhaps in part because of the very small sample size. In addition, the very high continuation rates in the control group left little room for improvement, and any impact of the quick start may have been diluted by the reminder phone calls made to both groups. Thus, it is difficult to reach any clear conclusion from this study.

A third study of the quick-start approach is not included in this review because participants' mean and median ages were unknown, and may have been less than 20. That study, conducted by the principal investigator in the first quick-start study, used a more rigorous experimental design and involved 1,716 women at three family planning clinics. (34) It found that women who started taking oral contraceptives in the clinic were more likely than those who did not to begin their second pack of pills, but they were not significantly more likely to still be using oral contraceptives three months after their initial visit. In addition, the quick-start regimen had no significant impact on pregnancy.

Advance Provision of Emergency Contraception

Four studies measured the impact of making emergency contraception available to women before they actually need it. All four found that advance provision significantly increased the use of the method.

The first study, which used an experimental design, included 370 women and found that those who were given contraceptive education and one regimen of emergency contraception in advance were four times as likely to use it during one year of follow-up as were women who were given only contraceptive education (17% vs. 4%). (35) The two groups did not differ in their rates of switching to other, less effective methods of contraception or in consistency of use, suggesting that providing emergency contraception in advance did not lead to less effective or less consistent contraceptive use. Notably, the sample consisted mostly of low-income Hispanic women, a group with a high pregnancy rate.

The second study measured emergency contraception use and other outcomes among 2,117 women randomly assigned to receive either three packets of emergency contraception at the clinic, instructions on how to obtain emergency contraception from 13 participating pharmacies if needed or instructions to return to the clinic for emergency contraception if needed. (36) After six months, women who had received emergency contraceptive pills in advance were more likely to have used emergency contraception than were those given instructions to return to the clinic if they needed the method. These two groups did not differ in sexual behavior (such as frequency of sex, number of partners, or frequency or consistency of condom use), but women in the advance provision group were less likely to have used a condom the last time they had sex (47% vs. 54%). Women who were instructed to go to a pharmacy if emergency contraception was needed and those instructed to return to the clinic did not differ on any measured outcome.

The third study measured the impact of providing two packets of emergency contraception and, if needed, free replacements to young women in Nevada and North Carolina. (37) Again, an experimental design was used, and over a 12-month period, women who received emergency contraception in advance were more likely to use it than were women who received only instruction on how to obtain emergency contraception from the clinic at regular cost. Rates of contraceptive use, frequency of sex, and incidence of pregnancy and STDs did not differ between the two groups.

The final advance provision study involved 1,130 clients at 31 family planning clinics in California. (38) Participants were randomly assigned to receive either a packet containing information about emergency contraception and two levonorgestrel pills or a packet containing emergency contraception information only. At follow-up, women who had received emergency contraception in advance were significantly more likely to have used emergency contraception than were women who had received information only (19% vs. 12%). The two groups did not differ in their contraceptive and risk-taking behavior.

These results are similar to those found in two studies of teenagers in the United States (39,40) and in studies of women in other countries. (41,42)

Reminder Systems

Two studies measured the impact of sending DMPA users reminders to obtain shots. One reminder system significantly increased the proportion of women who received their shots on time, while the other did not.

In the first study, each patient, at the time of her initial injection, was given a wallet-size card with the date of the next injection. Each patient in the intervention group was also sent a reminder postcard that included the dates of her next injection and her next Pap test. (43) The researchers reviewed the charts of 184 women; about half had received injections before the reminder system was put in place, the remainder afterward. Following the implementation of the reminder system, the proportion of injections administered on time increased from 64% to 76%; the proportion administered by the end of the 14-day grace period rose from 87% to 96%. These changes were statistically significant.

The second study, a prospective, randomized trial involving 250 women, sought to determine whether an intensive reminder system would improve 12-month compliance in women receiving DMPA injections. (44) After each injection, all women in the study were given appointment cards for their next injection, 12 weeks later. However, women in the intervention group were also sent a reminder letter two weeks before the next injection. Women in the intervention group who failed to keep their appointments were contacted by phone, multiple times over the course of the year, if necessary. At the one-year follow-up, the rate of injection continuation and the rate of on-time injections did not differ between the two groups.

DISCUSSION

This review found 11 studies that used experimental or quasi-experimental designs to measure the impact of interventions to increase contraceptive use among adult women. The interventions fell into five groups of programs.

Interventions that gave women a method of contraception during the visit or even started women on a method immediately during the visit were most effective at increasing use of that method, at least in the short run. Specifically, both studies that evaluated the impact of providing oral contraceptives in nontraditional settings found that this approach had a positive effect on contraceptive use for as long as eight months. Similarly, all four studies that evaluated advance provision of emergency contraception found that this approach increased use of the method for up to one year. Finally, one of the two studies measuring the impact of the quick-start approach to hormonal contraceptive use found that it increased use for two cycles, although the second study found no effect during the third cycle.

In general, these findings are consistent not only with each other, but also with common sense. They suggest that women who are motivated to obtain and use contraceptives are more likely to start using them if they receive them during a clinic visit than if they have to wait until a later time, when they might not be so focused on their reproductive health.

Some of these interventions were designed to help women obtain or start using their methods of contraception more quickly, but they did not address many of the reasons that women give for failing to use contraceptives. For example, they did not address women's motivation to avoid pregnancy, women's beliefs that they are not at risk for pregnancy (e.g., because they do not expect to have sex or they have sex infrequently) or their concerns about contraceptive use and its side and health effects.

Consequently, one might not expect these programs to have a long-term impact on contraceptive use-and indeed, the improvements in contraceptive use seen in these studies sometimes disappeared as length of follow-up increased. Moreover, although some of the studies probably lacked sufficient power to detect any impact on pregnancy, none of the six studies that assessed pregnancy rates found significant effects.

Thus, implementing these interventions more broadly will likely increase contraceptive use in the short run and might reduce unintended pregnancy to a small degree in the short run. On the other hand, it is not likely to reduce unintended pregnancy markedly.

Findings were mixed in the two studies involving reminder systems; one found an impact on compliance with DMPA injections, but the second did not. While it is not certain why the results between these two studies differed, the second study had a stronger design (a randomized trial vs. a two-phase quasi-experimental design) and measured impact for a much longer period of time (12 vs. three months).

Any review of this type--no matter how thorough the search--will undoubtedly fail to find a few studies meeting the specified criteria, and that is undoubtedly true of this review. Nevertheless, what is most striking about the results of this review is not the findings just described, but rather the extremely small number of studies that have evaluated the impact of interventions on contraceptive use among adult women. This review found only 11 such studies. Furthermore, most of this research focused on relatively young women: In nine of the 11 studies, the mean or median age was 26 or less. In addition, this review found no studies measuring the impact of state or federal policies.

By contrast, dozens of studies with experimental designs have measured the impact of interventions to increase condom use or change other sexual behaviors among adults to prevent STDs, and more than 100 studies have examined interventions to prevent pregnancy or STDs among adolescents. (28) For example, research has examined the impact of educational programs, media campaigns, teenage clinics, interactive videos, peer or opinion-leader programs, and youth development programs on the prevention of pregnancy or STDs among teenagers. Studies of corresponding interventions for adults to prevent unintended pregnancy either do not exist or have not been published in professional journals.

The relative paucity of studies to prevent unintended pregnancy among adult women undoubtedly reflects the widespread concern in the United States about the threat of HIV and other STDs during the past two decades. This concern has been manifested in the huge growth in funding for programs and research on HIV and other STDs, the increase in the number of relevant conferences and research journals, and the general professional interest in these issues. The lack of studies of programs to increase contraceptive use and reduce unintended pregnancy among adult women also reflects the stagnation of federal funding for family planning in the United States. * There are many reasons for this stagnation, but they are beyond the scope of this review. The paucity of studies with good experimental and quasi-experimental designs also reflects a lack of interest or commitment to research using these particular methods. After all, as noted earlier, numerous studies have examined women's use of contraceptives and overall reproductive health; however, the vast majority of them have employed other research methods. Finally, the absence of strong experimental or quasi-experimental studies of the impact of state or federal policies may reflect the challenges of using such approaches when policies are implemented either statewide or nationwide; for example, it may not always be feasible to randomly assign women to intervention or control groups when a state or national program is implemented.

Given the number of unintended pregnancies among women in the United States and the wide-ranging impact of these pregnancies, this lack of research is deplorable. Although other kinds of studies can provide guidance concerning potentially effective methods of reducing unintended pregnancy, the lack of a comprehensive set of studies employing experimental designs to measure the impact of different types of interventions severely limits our knowledge about how to proceed. Clearly, a well-developed research plan that rigorously assesses the effects of various approaches to increasing effective contraceptive use among adult women should be an integral part of any long-term effort to reduce unintended pregnancy in the United States.

Acknowledgments

Financial support for this report was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The views reflected in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation or ETR Associates. The author thanks Anne Olinick for reviewing thousands of titles and abstracts during the search for studies meeting the specified criteria.

REFERENCES

(1.) Guttmacher Institute, Contraception counts: ranking state efforts, In Brief, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2006.

(2.) Chandra A et al., Fertility, family planning, and reproductive health of U.S. women: data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth, Vital and Health Statistics, 2005, Series 23, No. 25.

(3.) Jones RK, Darroch JE and Henshaw SK, Patterns in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(5):226-235.

(4.) Hatcher RA et al., eds., Contraceptive Technology, 18th rev. ed., Alpharetta, GA: Bridging the Gap Communications, 2004.

(5.) Mosher WD et al., Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982-2002, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, 2004, No. 350.

(6.) Edwards JE et al., Women's knowledge of, and attitudes to, contraceptive effectiveness and adverse health effects, British Journal of Family Planning, 2000, 26(2):73-80.

(7.) Grady WR, Klepinger DH and Billy JO, The influence of community characteristics on the practice of effective contraception, Family Planning Perspectives, 1993, 25(1):4-11.

(8.) Gutierres SE and Barr A, The relationship between attitudes toward pregnancy and contraception use among drug users, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 2003, 24(1): 19-29.

(9.) Hogben M and Williams SP, Exploring the context of women's relationship perceptions, sexual behavior, and contraceptive strategies, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 2001, 13(2):1-19.

(10.) Jaccard Jet al., The prediction of accurate contraceptive use from attitudes and knowledge, Health Education Quarterly, 1996, 23(1):17-33.

(11.) Kalmuss D et al., Determinants of early implant discontinuation among low-income women, Family Planning Perspectives, 1996, 28(6):256-260.

(12.) Kramer MR, Hogue CJR and Gaydos LMD, Noncontracepting behavior in women at risk for unintended pregnancy: the role of religious affiliation, Contraception, 2005, 72(3):239.

(13.) Lamvu Get al., Consistency between most important reasons for using contraception and current method used: the influence of health care providers, Contraception, 2006, 73(4):399-403.

(14.) Matteson PS and Hawkins JW, Women's patterns of contraceptive use, Health Care for Women International, 1997, 18(5): 455-466.

(15.) Murphy P, Kirkman A and Hale RW, A national survey of women's attitudes toward oral contraception and other forms of birth control, Women's Health Issues, 1995, 5(2):94-99.

(16.) Petersen R et al., How contraceptive use patterns differ by pregnancy intention: implications for counseling, Women's Health Issues, 2001, 11(5):427-435.

(17.) Ramstrom KC et al., Predictors of contraceptive discontinuation in a sexually transmitted disease clinic population, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002, 34(3):146-152.

(18.) Schunmann C and Glasier A, Measuring pregnancy intention and its relationship with contraceptive use among women undergoing therapeutic abortion, Contraception, 2006, 73(5):520-524.

(19.) Tanfer K, Cubbins LA and Brewster KL, Determinants of contraceptive choice among single women in the United States, Family Planning Perspectives, 1992, 24(4):155-161 & 173.

(20.) Tanfer K, Wierzbicki S and Payn B, Why are U.S. women not using long-acting contraceptives? Family Planning Perspectives, 2000, 32(4):176-183 & 191.

(21.) Trussell J and Vaughan B, Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth, Family Planning Perspectives, 1999, 31(2):64-72 & 93.

(22.) Unger JB and Molina GB, Acculturation and attitudes about contraceptive use among Latina women, Health Care for Women International, 2000, 21(3):235-249.

(23.) Moos MK, Bartholomew NE and Lohr KN, Counseling in the clinical setting to prevent unintended pregnancy: an evidence-based research agenda, Contraception, 2003, 67(2):115-132.

(24.) Foster DG et al., Estimates of pregnancies averted through California's family planning waiver program in 2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(3):126-131.

(25.) Crepaz N et al., The efficacy of behavioral interventions in reducing HIV risk sex behaviors and incident sexually transmitted disease in black and Hispanic sexually transmitted disease clinic patients in the United States: a meta-analytic review, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 2006, 34(6):319-332.

(26.) Herbst JH et al., A systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral interventions to reduce HIV risk behaviors of Hispanics in the United States and Puerto Rico, AIDS and Behavior, 2007, 11(1):25-47.

(27.) Albarracin D et al., A test of major assumptions about behavior change: a comprehensive look at the effects of passive and active HIV-prevention interventions since the beginning of the epidemic, Psychological Bulletin, 2005, 131(6):856-897.

(28.) Kirby DB, Emerging Answers 2007: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 2007.

(29.) Petersen R et al., Pregnancy and STD prevention counseling using an adaptation of motivational interviewing: a randomized trial, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2007, 39(1):21-28.

(30.) Shlay JC et al., Initiating contraception in sexually transmitted disease clinic setting: a randomized trial, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2003, 189(2):473-481.

(31.) Clarke JG et al., Improving birth control service utilization by offering services prerelease vs. postincarceration, American Journal of Public Health, 2006, 96(5):840-845.

(32.) Westhoff C et al., Quick start: novel oral contraceptive initiation method, Contraception, 2002, 66(3):141-145.

(33.) Murthy AS et al., Same-day initiation of the transdermal hormonal delivery system (contraceptive patch) versus traditional initiation methods, Contraception, 2005, 72(5): 333-336.

(34.) Westhoff C et al., Initiation of oral contraceptives using a quick start compared with a conventional start: a randomized trial, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2007, 109(6):1270-1276.

(35.) Jackson RA et al., Advance supply of emergency contraception: effect on use and usual contraception--a randomized trial, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2003, 102(1):8-16.

(36.) Raine TR et al., Direct access to emergency contraception through pharmacies and effect on unintended pregnancy and STIs: a randomized controlled trial, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005, 293(1):54-62.

(37.) Raymond EG et al., Impact of increased access to emergency contraceptive pills: a randomized controlled trial, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2006, 108(5):1098-1106.

(38.) Walsh TL and Frezieres RG, Patterns of emergency contraception use by age and ethnicity from a randomized trial comparing advance provision and information only, Contraception, 2006, 74(2):110-117.

(39.) Raine T et al., Emergency contraception: advance provision in a young, high-risk clinic population, Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2000, 96(1):1-7.

(40.) Belzer M et al., Advance supply of emergency contraception: a randomized trial in adolescent mothers, Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 2005, 18(5):347-354.

(41.) Abbott Jet al., Emergency contraception: what do our patients know? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2004, 43(3):376-381.

(42.) Glasier A and Baird D, The effects of self-administering emergency contraception, New England Journal of Medicine, 1998, 339(1):1-4.

(43.) Madlon-Kay DJ, The effectiveness of a mall reminder system for depot medroxyprogesterone injections, Archives of Family Medicine, 1996, 5(4):234-236.

(44.) Keder LM, Rulin MC and Gruss J, Compliance with depot medroxyprogesterone acetate: a randomized, controlled trial of intensive reminders, American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 1998, 179(3):583-585.

* For example, appropriations for Title X declined 61% between 1980 and 2007, after inflation is taken into account (source: Gold RB et al., Medicaid's role in family planning, Issue Brief, New York: Guttmacher Institute and Kaiser Family Foundation, 2007).

* This estimate is based on calculations by Katherine Suellentrop of data from Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2006, 38(2):90-96, and from National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 2001 Natality Data Set, CD-ROM, Hyattsville, MD: NCHS, 2003, Series 21, No. 15.

* The 16 journals were Adolescence; American Journal of Community Psychology; American Journal of Public Health; Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine; Contraception; European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology; Human Reproduction; Journal of Adolescent Health; Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care; Journal of Marriage and the Family; Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology; Journal of Sex Research; Journal of Women's Health; Obstetrics & Gynecology; Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health; and Women's Health Issues.

([dagger])This estimate is based on calculations using data from Chandra and colleagues (reference 2).

Author contact: [e-mail]

Douglas Kirby is senior research scientist, ETR Associates, Scotts Valley, CA.

TABLE 1. Selected characteristics of experimental and
quasi-experimental studies of interventions to increase
contraceptive use among adult women by type of intervention,
1990-2007

Type and study     Setting/sample             Intervention

Pregnancy/STD prevention counseling

Petersen et al.,   Three primary health       Intervention group
2007 (29)          clinics in North           received pregnancy and
                   Carolina; N=764 women      STD prevention
                   aged 16-44; 62% white,     counseling at baseline
                   27% black                  and 2 months later;
                                              control group received
                                              general health
                                              counseling

Contraceptive initiation in alternative settings

Shlay et al.,      Urban STD clinic in        Intervention group
2003 (30)          Denver; N=877 women aged   received enhanced
                   [less than or equal to]    contraceptive
                   19-49; 40% white,          counseling, initial
                   30% Hispanic, 26% black    supply of contraceptives
                                              and a facilitated
                                              referral to a
                                              reproductive health care
                                              provider; intervention
                                              and control groups both
                                              received condoms and a
                                              list of providers for
                                              reproductive health care

Clarke et al.,     Adult correctional         Intervention group
2006 (31)          facility in Rhode          was offered
                   Island; N=224 low-income   contraceptives two weeks
                   women aged 18-35           prior to release;
                   (mean, 25); 53% white      intervention and control
                                              groups both received
                                              reproductive health
                                              education and referrals
                                              for contraceptive
                                              services at a community
                                              health clinic

Quick start of contraception

Westhoff et al.,   Family planning clinics    Intervention group took
2002 (32)          in New York City; N=250    the first pill at
                   low-income women; mean     clinic; control group
                   age, 22; 87% Hispanic      was instructed to take
                                              the first pill after
                                              the visit

Murthy et al.,     Hospital clinic in         Intervention group
2005 (33)          Pittsburgh; N=60 women;    started contraceptive
                   median age, 20; 77%        patch during clinic
                   white, 22% black 1%        visit; control group
                   Hispanic                   started patch on first
                                              day of next menses; both
                                              received a 4-month
                                              supply of patches,
                                              written instructions,
                                              prescription for EC and
                                              telephone reminder at
                                              6 weeks

Advance provision of EC

Jackson et al.,    Inner-city public          Intervention group
2003 (35)          hospital in San            received a regimen of
                   Francisco; N=370           EC plus a short
                   low-income women; mean     educational session on
                   age, 26,72% Hispanic       EC; intervention and
                                              control groups both
                                              received routine
                                              contraceptive education

Raine et al.,      Four family planning       Group A received three
2005 (36)          clinics in San Francisco   packets of EC; group B
                   and Daly City,             received instructions on
                   California; N=2,117        how to receive free EC
                   mixed-income women aged    from 13 participating
                   15-24 (mean, 20); 31%      pharmacies; control
                   white, 22% Asian, 20%      group was instructed to
                   Hispanic, 15% black        return to the clinic to
                                              receive EC when needed

Raymond et al.,    Four family planning       Intervention group
2006 (37)          clinics in Nevada and      received two packets of
                   North Carolina; N=1,490    EC to use when needed
                   women aged 14-24           and free replacements
                   (median, 20); 70% white    if needed; control group
                                              received instructions
                                              on how to obtain EC
                                              from clinics for the
                                              usual cost

Walsh and          31 clinics in              Intervention group
Frezieres,         California; N=1,130        received one regimen of
2006 (38)          women aged 15-41; 30%      EC; intervention and
                   white, 29% Hispanic,       control groups both
                   21% Asian,                 received a packet of
                   20% black                  information about EC

Contraceptive reminder systems

Madlon-Kay,        Family clinic in St.       Intervention group was
1996 (43)          Paul; N=184 low-income     sent a postcard with
                   women aged 13-50           the dates for their next
                   (mean, 23); 69% white,     DMPA injection and Pap
                   21% black, 6% Hispanic     test; intervention and
                                              control groups both
                                              received appointment
                                              cards for their next
                                              injection

Keder, Rulin and   Hospital clinic in         Intervention group
Gruss, 1998 (44)   Pittsburgh; N=250          members were sent a
                   low-income women; mean     letter two weeks prior
                   age, 21; 68% black         to each scheduled DMPA
                   32% white                  injection and were
                                              telephoned if they
                                              failed to keep their
                                              appointment; treatment
                                              and control groups both
                                              received written
                                              appointment cards for
                                              next injection

Type and study     Design                     Measure

Pregnancy/STD prevention counseling

Petersen et al.,   Experimental;              Contraceptive use
2007 (29)          questionnaires             Pregnancy
                   at baseline and            STDs
                   at 2, 8 and 12
                   months

Contraceptive initiation in alternative settings

Shlay et al.,      Experimental;              Median transition to
2003 (30)          interviews at 4, 8           primary care provider
                   and 12 months              Contraceptive use
                                              (4 mo.)
                                              Contraceptive use
                                              (8 mo.)
                                              Contraceptive use
                                              (12 mo.)
                                              Condom use (4 mo.)
                                              Condom use (8 mo.)
                                              Condom use (12 mo.)
                                              Dual protection use
                                              (4mo.)
                                              Dual protection use
                                              (8 mo.)
                                              Dual protection use
                                              (12 mo.)
                                              Pregnancy
                                              Unintended pregnancy
                                              Therapeutic abortion
                                              STDs

Clarke et al.,     Phased quasi-              Contraceptive use four
2006 (31)          experimental;                weeks after release
                   control group
                   received services
                   during phase 1 (7 mo.);
                   intervention group
                   received services
                   during phase 2
                   (15 mo.); outcomes
                   assessed via chart
                   review

Quick start of contraception

Westhoff et al.,   Quasi-experimental;        Started second pack
2002 (32)          group assignment           of pills
                   determined by
                   clinician preference;
                   follow-up interviews
                   [greater than or equal
                   to] 6 weeks later

Murthy et al.,     Experimental; patch        Patch use during third
2005 (33)          use assessed at clinic     cycle
                   visit at beginning of
                   fourth cycle

Advance provision of EC

Jackson et al.,    Experimental;              EC use
2003 (35)          telephone                  Condom use
                   interviews at 6            Consistent contraceptive
                   and 12 months              use Change to less
                                                effective method
                                              Unplanned pregnancy

Raine et al.,      Experimental;              EC use
2005 (36)          questionnaires
                   and pregnancy and          Condom used at last sex
                   STD tests at baseline
                   and 6 months               Frequency of unprotected
                                                sex
                                              Consistency of pill use
                                              Changed method
                                              Frequency of sex
                                              No. of partners
                                              Frequency of condom use
                                              Consistent condom use
                                              Pregnancy
                                              STDs

Raymond et al.,    Experimental;              Median no. of EC uses
2006 (37)          questionnaires at          Median no. of hours
                   baseline and at 6          between sex and EC use
                   and 12 months              Frequency of sex
                                              Contraceptive use in
                                                last month
                                              Condom use in last month
                                              Pregnancy
                                              STDs

Walsh and          Experimental;              EC use
Frezieres,         telephone interviews       EC use within 12 hours
2006 (38)          at 3-9 months              of sex Contraceptive use
                                              Unprotected sex
                                              Condom failure
                                              Hormonal method use
                                              Pregnancy

Contraceptive reminder systems

Madlon-Kay,        Phased quasi-              On-time injections
1996 (43)          experimental;              Injections by end of
                   control groups               14-day grace period
                   received services
                   during phase 1
                   (14 mo.); intervention
                   group received
                   services during phase
                   2 (11 mo.); outcomes
                   from chart review

Keder, Rulin and   Experimental;              DMPA continuation
Gruss, 1998 (44)   outcomes assessed          On-time injections
                   at one year

Type and study     Result/significance
                   ([double dagger])

Pregnancy/STD prevention counseling

Petersen et al.,   ns
2007 (29)          ns
                   ns

Contraceptive initiation in alternative settings

Shlay et al.,
2003 (30)          79 vs. 115 days **
                   50% vs. 22% ***
                   44% vs. 26% ***
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   29% vs. 14% ***
                   23% vs. 14% **
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns

Clarke et al.,
2006 (31)          39% vs. 4% *

Quick start of contraception

Westhoff et al.,   88% vs. 74% *
2002 (32)

Murthy et al.,     ns
2005 (33)

Advance provision of EC

Jackson et al.,    17% vs. 4% *
2003 (35)          ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns

Raine et al.,      37% vs. 21 % ***
2005 (36)            ([section])
                   47% vs. 54% *
                     ([section])
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns

Raymond et al.,    2 vs. 0 **
2006 (37)
                   12 vs. 36 **
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns

Walsh and          19% vs. 12% ***
Frezieres,         43% vs. 28% ([dagger])
2006 (38)          ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns
                   ns

Contraceptive reminder systems

Madlon-Kay,        76% vs. 64% *
1996 (43)
                   96% vs. 87% **

Keder, Rulin and   ns
Gruss, 1998 (44)   ns

* p <.05. ** p <01. *** p <.001. ([dagger]) p <10.
([double dagger]) Results for intervention group are listed first,
followed by results for control group. ([section]) Comparison is
between group A and control group; comparison between group B and
control group was not significant. Notes: ns=not significant;
EC=emergency contraception; DMPA=depot medroxyprogesterone acetate.