Contraceptive Use Among Women at Risk for Unintended Pregnancy in the Context of Public Health Emergencies — United States, 2016

Ensuring access to and promoting use of effective contraception have been identified as important strategies for preventing unintended pregnancy (1). The importance of ensuring resources to prevent unintended pregnancy in the context of public health emergencies was highlighted during the 2016 Zika virus outbreak when Zika virus infection during pregnancy was identified as a cause of serious birth defects (2). Accordingly, CDC outlined strategies for state, local, and territorial jurisdictions to consider implementing to ensure access to contraception (3). To update previously published contraceptive use estimates* among women at risk for unintended pregnancy^† and to estimate the number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services,^§,¶ data on contraceptive use were collected during September–December 2016 through the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Results from 21 jurisdictions indicated that most women aged 18–49 years were at risk for unintended pregnancy (range across jurisdictions = 57.4%–76.8%). Estimates of the number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services ranged from 368 to 617 per 1,000 women aged 18–49 years. The percentage of women at risk for unintended pregnancy using a most or moderately effective contraceptive method** ranged from 26.1% to 65.7%. Jurisdictions can use this information to estimate the number of women who might seek contraceptive services and to plan and evaluate efforts to increase contraceptive use. This information is particularly important in the context of public health emergencies, such as the recent Zika virus outbreak, which have been associated with increased risk for adverse maternal-infant outcomes (2,4–6) and have highlighted the importance of providing women and their partners with resources to prevent unintended pregnancy.

BRFSS is a cross-sectional jurisdiction-specific, random-digit–dialed, telephone survey that collects data on risk behaviors and preventive health practices among adult respondents living in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and U.S. Virgin Islands.^†† This report includes data from 21 jurisdictions^§§ that implemented the optional family planning module on self-reported contraceptive use during September–December 2016.^¶¶ Individual contraceptive methods from this module were classified according to first-year typical use failure rates as most effective (≤1% failure), moderately effective (>1%–10% failure), or less effective (>10% failure).*** Women reporting more than one contraceptive method were classified according to the most effective method they reported using.

Weighted estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to determine the proportion of women aged 18–49 years at risk for unintended pregnancy (defined as those who reported they were sexually active with a male partner, but did not report that they were currently pregnant or seeking pregnancy, that they would not mind being pregnant, or that they had a hysterectomy). In addition, numbers and rates (total number and number per 1,000 women aged 18–49 years) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services (defined as those at risk for unintended pregnancy who were not using permanent contraceptive methods [female sterilization or report of male partner vasectomy]). Estimates also were calculated to describe the proportion of women at risk for unintended pregnancy using contraception by effectiveness category (most effective, including permanent methods and long-acting reversible contraception [LARC]; moderately effective; less effective; and no method). Estimates for using either a less effective method or no method were further stratified by age group (18–24, 25–34, 35–44, and 45–49 years). Women at risk for unintended pregnancy who did not specify the type of contraception they used or reported “other” methods (4.8%)^††† were excluded from estimates of contraceptive use by method effectiveness and from estimates of the number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services. Estimates that did not meet reliability standards established for BRFSS were suppressed.^§§§

Among the 21 jurisdictions, the proportion of women aged 18–49 years at risk for unintended pregnancy ranged from 57.4% (Texas) to 76.8% (Minnesota) (Table 1). Jurisdictions with the fewest numbers of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services included Guam, Kansas, Puerto Rico, and West Virginia; jurisdictions with the highest numbers included California, Florida, Illinois, and Texas. Estimates of the number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services per 1,000 women aged 18–49 years ranged from 368 in Puerto Rico to 617 in Maryland. Among women at risk for unintended pregnancy, the proportion using either a most or moderately effective contraceptive method ranged from 26.1% (Guam) to 65.7% (West Virginia) (Table 2); among 11 jurisdictions with reliable estimates for LARC, use ranged from 5.5% (Kansas) to 17.0% (Maryland). Among 18 jurisdictions with reliable estimates, the percentage of women at risk for unintended pregnancy using a less effective method of contraception ranged from 11.1% (Illinois) to 47.7% (Arizona), and among 19 jurisdictions, the percentage not using any method of contraception ranged from 16.5% (Virginia) to 63.0% (Guam) (Table 3). Across age-stratified estimates, the percentage using either a less effective method or no method ranged from 25.9% (women aged 35–44 years in South Carolina) to 79.9% (women aged 18–24 years in California) (Supplementary Table, https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/57915).

Acknowledgments

Robert Bailey, Arizona Department of Health Services; Judy Bass, Arizona Department of Health Services; Gayle Blair, Illinois Department of Public Health; Martin F. Celaya, Arizona Department of Health Services; Elizabeth Ferree, Virginia Department of Health; William Garvin, Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; Jennifer G. Laliberté, Kansas Department of Health and Environment; Tebitha Mawokomatanda, Division of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; Kenneth J. O’Dowd, New Jersey Department of Health; Ghazala Perveen, Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

Corresponding author: Karen Pazol, kpazol@cdc.gov, 770-488-6305.

¹Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC; ²Division of Congenital and Developmental Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.

References

1. Rankin KM, Gavin L, Moran JW Jr, et al. Importance of performance measurement and MCH epidemiology leadership to quality improvement initiatives at the national, state and local levels. Matern Child Health J 2016;20:2239–46. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
2. Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, Honein MA, Petersen LR. Zika virus and birth defects—reviewing the evidence for causality. N Engl J Med 2016;374:1981–7. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
3. Kroelinger CD, Romero L, Lathrop E, et al. Meeting summary: state and local implementation strategies for increasing access to contraception during Zika preparedness and response—United States, September 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;66:1230–5. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
4. Ellington SR, Kourtis AP, Curtis KM, et al. Contraceptive availability during an emergency response in the United States. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2013;22:189–93. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
5. Callaghan WM, Rasmussen SA, Jamieson DJ, et al. Health concerns of women and infants in times of natural disasters: lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. Matern Child Health J 2007;11:307–11. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
6. Ko JY, Wolicki S, Barfield WD, et al. CDC grand rounds: public health strategies to prevent neonatal abstinence syndrome. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2017;66:242–5. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
7. Frost JJ, Sonfield A, Zolna MR, Finer LB. Return on investment: a fuller assessment of the benefits and cost savings of the US publicly funded family planning program. Milbank Q 2014;92:696–749. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
8. Li R, Simmons KB, Bertolli J, et al. Cost-effectiveness of increasing access to contraception during the Zika virus outbreak, Puerto Rico, 2016. Emerg Infect Dis 2017;23:74–82. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
9. Finer LB, Kost K. Unintended pregnancy rates at the state level. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2011;43:78–87. CrossRefexternal icon PubMedexternal icon
10. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology, Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Work Group. Practice bulletin no. 186: long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130:e251–69. PubMedexternal icon

Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval.
* Women were considered at risk for unintended pregnancy unless they reported that they were not sexually active with a male partner, that they were currently pregnant or seeking pregnancy, that they would not mind being pregnant, or that they had a hysterectomy.
^† Women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services were defined as those women considered at risk for unintended pregnancy who were not using permanent contraceptive methods (female sterilization or report of male partner vasectomy).
^§The number of women with ongoing or potential need for contraceptive services can be used to predict how many women might seek services; this measure does not represent unmet need for contraception because many of these women might already be using some method of contraception: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/contraceptive-needs-and-services-2014_1.pdfpdf iconexternal icon.
^¶ Numbers are rounded to the nearest 100.

Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval
* Women were considered at risk for unintended pregnancy unless they reported that they were not sexually active with a male partner, that they were currently pregnant or seeking pregnancy, that they would not mind being pregnant, or that they had a hysterectomy.
^† Most effective contraceptive methods included permanent methods (female sterilization or report of male partner vasectomy) and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC, including intrauterine devices [IUDs] and contraceptive implants); most effective methods have a ≤1% failure rate during the first year of typical use. Sources: Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83:397–404. Sundaram A, Vaughan B, Kost K, et al. Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49:7–16.
^§ Moderately effective contraceptive methods included contraceptive injectables, contraceptive pills, transdermal contraceptive patches, and vaginal rings; moderately effective methods have a >1%–10% failure rate with typical use. Sources: Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83:397–404. Sundaram A, Vaughan B, Kost K, et al. Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49:7–16.
^¶ Estimate is unreliable (relative standard error >30% or denominator <50).

Abbreviation: CI = confidence interval.
* Women were considered at risk for unintended pregnancy unless they reported that they were not sexually active with a male partner, that they were currently pregnant or seeking pregnancy, that they would not mind being pregnant, or that they had a hysterectomy.
^† Less effective contraceptive methods included diaphragms, condoms (male or female), withdrawal, cervical caps, sponges, spermicides, fertility-awareness based methods, and emergency contraception; less effective methods have a >10% failure rate during the first year of typical use. Sources: Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83:397–404. Sundaram A, Vaughan B, Kost K, et al. Contraceptive failure in the United States: estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2017;49:7–16.
^§ Estimate is unreliable (relative standard error >30% or denominator <50).