Cargando…

Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?

BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs continue to be a barrier to accessing necessary healthcare services, including contraception. We explored how eliminating out-of-pocket cost affects contraceptive method choice among people reporting difficulty paying for healthcare in the previous year, and whether m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gero, Alexandra, Simmons, Rebecca G., Sanders, Jessica N., Turok, David K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9344653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35918666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01911-x
_version_ 1784761266250711040
author Gero, Alexandra
Simmons, Rebecca G.
Sanders, Jessica N.
Turok, David K.
author_facet Gero, Alexandra
Simmons, Rebecca G.
Sanders, Jessica N.
Turok, David K.
author_sort Gero, Alexandra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs continue to be a barrier to accessing necessary healthcare services, including contraception. We explored how eliminating out-of-pocket cost affects contraceptive method choice among people reporting difficulty paying for healthcare in the previous year, and whether method satisfaction differed by method choice. METHODS: We used data from the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative. This prospective cohort study provided participants with no-cost contraception (April 2016–March 2017) following a control period that provided no reduction in cost for the contraceptive implant, a reduced price for the hormonal IUD, and a sliding scale that decreased to no-cost for the copper IUD (September 2015–March 2016). We restricted the study population to those who reported difficulty paying for healthcare in the past 12 months. For our primary outcome assessing changes in method selection between intervention and control periods, we ran simultaneous multivariable logistic regression models for each method, applying test corrections for multiple comparisons. Among participants who continued their method for 1 year, we explored differences in method satisfaction using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1,029 participants reporting difficulty paying for healthcare and controlling for other factors, participants more frequently selected the implant (aOR 6.0, 95% CI 2.7, 13.2) and the hormonal IUD (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7, 5.9) during the intervention than control period. Comparing the same periods, participants less frequently chose the injection (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.8) and the pill (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.6). We did not observe a difference in uptake of the copper IUD (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0, 4.1).Contraceptive satisfaction scores differed minimally by contraceptive method used among contraceptive continuers (n = 534). Those who selected LNG IUDs were less likely to report low satisfaction with their method (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.97). CONCLUSION: With costs removed, participants who reported difficulty paying for healthcare were more likely to select hormonal IUDs and implants and less likely to select the injectable or contraceptive pills. Among continuers, there were few differences in method satisfaction. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02734199 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-022-01911-x.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9344653
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93446532022-08-03 Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care? Gero, Alexandra Simmons, Rebecca G. Sanders, Jessica N. Turok, David K. BMC Womens Health Research BACKGROUND: Out-of-pocket costs continue to be a barrier to accessing necessary healthcare services, including contraception. We explored how eliminating out-of-pocket cost affects contraceptive method choice among people reporting difficulty paying for healthcare in the previous year, and whether method satisfaction differed by method choice. METHODS: We used data from the HER Salt Lake Contraceptive Initiative. This prospective cohort study provided participants with no-cost contraception (April 2016–March 2017) following a control period that provided no reduction in cost for the contraceptive implant, a reduced price for the hormonal IUD, and a sliding scale that decreased to no-cost for the copper IUD (September 2015–March 2016). We restricted the study population to those who reported difficulty paying for healthcare in the past 12 months. For our primary outcome assessing changes in method selection between intervention and control periods, we ran simultaneous multivariable logistic regression models for each method, applying test corrections for multiple comparisons. Among participants who continued their method for 1 year, we explored differences in method satisfaction using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 1,029 participants reporting difficulty paying for healthcare and controlling for other factors, participants more frequently selected the implant (aOR 6.0, 95% CI 2.7, 13.2) and the hormonal IUD (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 1.7, 5.9) during the intervention than control period. Comparing the same periods, participants less frequently chose the injection (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.8) and the pill (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.6). We did not observe a difference in uptake of the copper IUD (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.0, 4.1).Contraceptive satisfaction scores differed minimally by contraceptive method used among contraceptive continuers (n = 534). Those who selected LNG IUDs were less likely to report low satisfaction with their method (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3, 0.97). CONCLUSION: With costs removed, participants who reported difficulty paying for healthcare were more likely to select hormonal IUDs and implants and less likely to select the injectable or contraceptive pills. Among continuers, there were few differences in method satisfaction. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02734199 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-022-01911-x. BioMed Central 2022-08-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9344653/ /pubmed/35918666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01911-x Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Gero, Alexandra
Simmons, Rebecca G.
Sanders, Jessica N.
Turok, David K.
Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
title Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
title_full Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
title_fullStr Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
title_full_unstemmed Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
title_short Does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
title_sort does access to no-cost contraception change method selection among individuals who report difficulty paying for health-related care?
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9344653/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35918666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12905-022-01911-x
work_keys_str_mv AT geroalexandra doesaccesstonocostcontraceptionchangemethodselectionamongindividualswhoreportdifficultypayingforhealthrelatedcare
AT simmonsrebeccag doesaccesstonocostcontraceptionchangemethodselectionamongindividualswhoreportdifficultypayingforhealthrelatedcare
AT sandersjessican doesaccesstonocostcontraceptionchangemethodselectionamongindividualswhoreportdifficultypayingforhealthrelatedcare
AT turokdavidk doesaccesstonocostcontraceptionchangemethodselectionamongindividualswhoreportdifficultypayingforhealthrelatedcare