IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v20y2023i19p6862-d1250722.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contraceptive Behavior in Appalachia: Exploring Use, Nonuse, and Contraceptive Attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Samantha Auerbach

    (School of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA
    Current address: School of Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.)

  • Kafuli Agbemenu

    (School of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA)

  • Rebecca Lorenz

    (School of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA)

  • Amy Hequembourg

    (School of Nursing, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14214, USA)

  • Gretchen E. Ely

    (College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

Abstract

Very little is known about contraceptive behavior in Appalachia, a large geographic region in the eastern United States where even basic prevalence estimates of contraceptive use/nonuse are lacking. This study characterizes contraceptive behavior among Appalachians, including contraceptive use, reasons for use, and methods used; contraceptive nonuse and reasons for nonuse; and attitudes about contraception, including acceptability. This is a secondary analysis of a subsample of survey data collected on sexual and reproductive health attitudes, behaviors, and needs among reproductive-age women (18–49 years) living in the Appalachian region ( n = 332). Results identify rates of contraceptive use (66.6%) and nonuse (33.1%) among Appalachian residents. Methods used most frequently included those that did not require prescription (i.e., external condoms and natural family planning methods) though many reported the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs). Among nonusers, fear of side effects from contraception and ambivalence towards pregnancy were most commonly selected as the most important reason for not using contraception. Contraception was considered acceptable by this sample overall, and these acceptability attitudes were significantly associated with contraceptive behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Samantha Auerbach & Kafuli Agbemenu & Rebecca Lorenz & Amy Hequembourg & Gretchen E. Ely, 2023. "Contraceptive Behavior in Appalachia: Exploring Use, Nonuse, and Contraceptive Attitudes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(19), pages 1-10, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:19:p:6862-:d:1250722
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/19/6862/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/19/6862/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Higgins, J.A. & Kramer, R.D. & Ryder, K.M., 2016. "Provider bias in long-Acting reversible contraception (LARC) promotion and removal: Perceptions of young adult women," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 106(11), pages 1932-1937.
    2. Laura E. T. Swan & Samantha L. Auerbach & Gretchen E. Ely & Kafuli Agbemenu & Jessica Mencia & Nimah R. Araf, 2020. "Family Planning Practices in Appalachia: Focus Group Perspectives on Service Needs in the Context of Regional Substance Abuse," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-25, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Laura E. T. Swan & Lindsay M. Cannon, 2024. "Healthcare Provider-Based Contraceptive Coercion: Understanding U.S. Patient Experiences and Describing Implications for Measurement," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Jennifer Manlove & Brooke Whitfield & Jane Finocharo & Elizabeth Cook, 2021. "Lessons Learned from Replicating a Randomized Control Trial Evaluation of an App-Based Sexual Health Program," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-14, March.
    3. Manzer, Jamie L. & Bell, Ann V., 2022. "The limitations of patient-centered care: The case of early long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) removal," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    4. Emma Griffiths & Julia V Marley & David Atkinson, 2020. "Preconception Care in a Remote Aboriginal Community Context: What, When and by Whom?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-13, May.
    5. Wright, Kelsey Q., 2020. "Contraceptive selection and practice: Associations with self-identified race and socioeconomic disadvantage," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    6. Rosalind Waller & Michael Tholander & Doris Nilsson, 2017. "‘You Will Have These Ones!’: Six Women’s Experiences of Being Pressured to Make a Contraceptive Choice That Did Not Feel Right," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-14, September.
    7. Laura E. T. Swan, 2023. "Policy impacts on contraceptive access in the United States: a scoping review," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 1-72, March.
    8. C Geist & B G Everett & R G Simmons & J N Sanders & L M Gawron & K Myers & D K Turok, 2021. "Changing lives, dynamic plans: Prospective assessment of 12-month changes in pregnancy timing intentions and personal circumstances using data from HER Salt Lake," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-11, September.
    9. Kimport, Katrina, 2018. "Talking about male body-based contraceptives: The counseling visit and the feminization of contraception," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 201(C), pages 44-50.
    10. Mieke C. W. Eeckhaut & Michael S. Rendall, 2022. "Are Births More Likely to be Intended Following Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptives? An Analysis of U.S. Births in 2003–2015," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(3), pages 1085-1110, June.
    11. Andrew G. Corley & Andrea Sprockett & Dominic Montagu & Nirali M. Chakraborty, 2022. "Exploring and Monitoring Privacy, Confidentiality, and Provider Bias in Sexual and Reproductive Health Service Provision to Young People: A Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-22, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:20:y:2023:i:19:p:6862-:d:1250722. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.