To refer to this page use:
|Abstract:||CONTEXT: Contraceptive failure rates measure a woman's probability of becoming pregnant while using a contraceptive. Information about these rates enables couples to make informed contraceptive choices. Failure rates were last estimated for 2002, and social and economic changes that have occurred since then necessitate a reestimation. METHODS: To estimate failure rates for the most commonly used reversible methods in the United States, data from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth were used; some 15,728 contraceptive use intervals, contributed by 6,683 women, were analyzed. Data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2008 Abortion Patient Survey were used to adjust for abortion underreporting. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to estimate the associated single-decrement probability of failure by duration of use. Failure rates were compared with those from 1995 and 2002. RESULTS: Long-acting reversible contraceptives (the IUD and the implant) had the lowest failure rates of all methods (1%), while condoms and withdrawal carried the highest probabilities of failure (13% and 20%, respectively). However, the failure rate for the condom had declined significantly since 1995 (from 18%), as had the failure rate for all hormonal methods combined (from 8% to 6%). The failure rate for all reversible methods combined declined from 12% in 2002 to 10% in 2006-2010. CONCLUSIONS: These broad-based declines in failure rates reverse a long-term pattern of minimal change. Future research should explore what lies behind these trends, as well as possibilities for further improvements.|
|Citation:||Sundaram, A, Vaughan, B, Kost, K, Bankole, A, Finer, L, Singh, S, Trussell, J. (2017). Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 49 (7 - 16). doi:10.1363/psrh.12017|
|Pages:||7 - 16|
|Type of Material:||Journal Article|
|Journal/Proceeding Title:||Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health|
|Version:||Final published version. Article is made available in OAR by the publisher's permission or policy.|
Items in OAR@Princeton are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.