Riley J Steiner, Nicole Liddon, Andrea L Swartzendruber, Catherine N Rasberry, Jessica M Sales
IMPORTANCE: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), specifically intrauterine devices and implants, offers an unprecedented opportunity to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents because it is highly effective even with typical use. However, adolescent LARC users may be less likely to use condoms for preventing sexually transmitted infections compared with users of moderately effective contraceptive methods (ie, oral, Depo-Provera injection, patch, and ring contraceptives).
OBJECTIVE: To compare condom use between sexually active female LARC users and users of moderately effective contraceptive methods.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional analysis using data from the 2013 national Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a nationally representative sample of US high school students in grades 9 through 12. Descriptive analyses were conducted among sexually active female students (n = 2288); logistic regression analyses were restricted to sexually active female users of LARC and moderately effective contraception (n = 619). The analyses were conducted in July and August 2015.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Contraceptive method at last sexual intercourse was assessed by 1 item-respondents could select birth control pills; condoms; an intrauterine device or implant; injection, patch, or ring; withdrawal or other method; or not sure. A separate item asked whether respondents used a condom at last sexual intercourse. We created an indicator variable to distinguish those reporting use of (1) LARC (intrauterine device or implant), (2) oral contraceptives, and (3) Depo-Provera, patch, or ring.
RESULTS: Among the 2288 sexually active female participants (56.7% white; 33.6% in 12th grade), 1.8% used LARC; 5.7% used Depo-Provera, patch, or ring; 22.4% used oral contraceptives; 40.8% used condoms; 11.8% used withdrawal or other method; 15.7% used no contraceptive method; and 1.9% were not sure. In adjusted analyses, LARC users were about 60% less likely to use condoms compared with oral contraceptive users (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84). No significant differences in condom use were observed between LARC users and Depo-Provera injection, patch, or ring users (aPR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.25). The LARC users were more than twice as likely to have 2 or more recent sexual partners compared with oral contraceptive users (aPR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.75-3.90) and Depo-Provera, patch, or ring users (aPR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.17-5.67).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Observed differences in condom use may reflect motivations to use condoms for backup pregnancy prevention. Users of highly effective LARC methods may no longer perceive a need for condoms even if they have multiple sexual partners, which places them at risk for sexually transmitted infections. As uptake of LARC increases among adolescents, a clear need exists to incorporate messages about condom use specifically for sexually transmitted infection prevention.
J Adolesc Health. 2003 Apr;32(4):296-305
[PMID:
12667734]
Fam Plann Perspect. 1997 Nov-Dec;29(6):261-7
[PMID:
9429871]
N Engl J Med. 1994 Nov 3;331(18):1201-6
[PMID:
7935659]
Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2011;2011:107140
[PMID:
21845022]
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Sep;49(5):567-80
[PMID:
10452414]
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013 Mar 1;62(RR-1):1-20
[PMID:
23446553]
Fertil Steril. 2012 Oct;98(4):893-7
[PMID:
22795639]
Pediatrics. 2015 Sep;136(3):e551-3
[PMID:
26283780]
Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):e1257-81
[PMID:
25266435]
Pediatrics. 2014 Oct;134(4):e1244-56
[PMID:
25266430]
Public Health Rep. 2010 Mar-Apr;125(2):208-17
[PMID:
20297747]
Contraception. 2011 May;83(5):397-404
[PMID:
21477680]
Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:717163
[PMID:
22505799]
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Oct;120(4):983-8
[PMID:
22996129]
Soc Sci Res. 2012 Sep;41(5):1028-36
[PMID:
23017915]
Lancet. 2015 Aug 8;386(9993):562-8
[PMID:
26091743]
J Assoc Nurses AIDS Care. 2001 Nov-Dec;12(6):78-87
[PMID:
11723916]
J Adolesc Health. 2004 Mar;34(3):216-23
[PMID:
14967345]
J Adolesc Health. 2013 Apr;52(4 Suppl):S29-34
[PMID:
23535054]
J Adolesc Health. 2007 Mar;40(3):275.e15-22
[PMID:
17321430]
MMWR Suppl. 2014 Jun 13;63(4):1-168
[PMID:
24918634]
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015 Apr 10;64(13):363-9
[PMID:
25856258]
Sex Transm Dis. 2013 Mar;40(3):187-93
[PMID:
23403598]
Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;117(5):1105-1113
[PMID:
21508749]
J Adolesc Health. 2015 Feb;56(2):223-30
[PMID:
25620306]
MMWR Recomm Rep. 2014 Apr 25;63(RR-04):1-54
[PMID:
24759690]
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2013 Apr;26(2):86-95
[PMID:
23287602]
Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Jan-Feb;30(1):19-23
[PMID:
9494811]
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010 Dec;164(12):1125-31
[PMID:
21135341]
J Adolesc Health. 2002 Oct;31(4):336-42
[PMID:
12359379]
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995 Apr;172(4 Pt 1):1128-35; discussion 1135-7
[PMID:
7726249]
J Adolesc Health. 1998 Oct;23(4):205-11
[PMID:
9763156]
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014 Aug;28(6):891-901
[PMID:
24947598]
J Adolesc Health. 2014 Feb;54(2):169-75
[PMID:
24074606]
Contraception. 2015 Dec;92(6):560-6
[PMID:
26079469]
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Apr;180(4):929-37
[PMID:
10203661]
Fam Plann Perspect. 1998 Sep-Oct;30(5):240-3
[PMID:
9782048]
Fam Plann Perspect. 1997 Nov-Dec;29(6):277-9, 287
[PMID:
9429874]
Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014 Sep;46(3):125-32
[PMID:
24961366]
Sex Transm Dis. 2002 Mar;29(3):168-74
[PMID:
11875378]
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 08;9(7):e101804
[PMID:
25003504]
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 2;371(14):1316-23
[PMID:
25271604]
Adolescent
Condoms
Contraception
Contraceptive Agents, Female
Cross-Sectional Studies
Drug Implants
Female
Humans
Intrauterine Devices
Prospective Studies
Safe Sex
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Students