{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,4]],"date-time":"2026-05-04T17:41:30Z","timestamp":1777916490276,"version":"3.51.4"},"reference-count":33,"publisher":"SAGE Publications","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,5,1]],"date-time":"2019-05-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1556668800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/page\/policies\/text-and-data-mining-license"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["journals.sagepub.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Journal of Women's Health"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,5]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Understanding factors associated with contraceptive use post-abortion can inform clinical practices to improve contraception uptake.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Materials and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>This prospective cohort study included adult women who completed the survey before surgical abortion at an Atlanta, Georgia clinic, with an online survey 12 weeks later. Poisson regression models assessed associations between demographic and reproductive factors and use of more effective (contraceptive pill, ring, patch, injectables, intrauterine device [IUD], implant, sterilization) versus less effective (none, condoms, withdrawal, rhythm methods) contraception at follow-up.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Three hundred ninety three women completed the initial survey; 180 (46%) completed follow-up. Of those completing follow-up, 109 (61%) expressed interest in initiating more effective methods in-clinic, yet only 85 (47%) reported using these methods at follow-up. Sixty-one women (34%) were not using their preferred contraceptive at follow-up; 34 (56%) of whom preferred to use IUD, implant, or sterilization. More effective contraception use was significantly associated with age over 30 (adjusted risk ratio, aRR 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14\u20132.57); nulliparity (aRR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20\u20132.42); use of more effective methods at most recent conception (aRR 2.56, 95% CI: 1.73\u20133.79); interest in more effective methods at the time of the abortion (aRR 1.55, 95% CI: 1.11\u20132.18); and receiving a contraceptive\/prescription at the time of abortion (aRR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37\u20132.81).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Over half of women use less effective contraception 3 months post-abortion, despite a high interest in more effective contraception. Additional research is needed to understand contraceptive decision making in the context of abortion care to inform interventions to increase contraceptive uptake.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,3,11]],"date-time":"2019-03-11T11:59:46Z","timestamp":1552305586000},"page":"591-599","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1177\/sage-journals-update-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":4,"title":["Predictors of More Effective Contraceptive Method Use at 12 Weeks Post-Abortion: A Prospective Cohort Study"],"prefix":"10.1177","volume":"28","author":[{"given":"Timothy C.","family":"Nielsen","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Katherine G.","family":"Michel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Renita","family":"White","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Kristin M.","family":"Wall","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lauren","family":"Christiansen-Lindquist","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Eva","family":"Lathrop","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia."},{"name":"Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Mark","family":"Adams","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"The Women's Clinics, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Lisa B.","family":"Haddad","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia."}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"179","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,5,17]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_3_3_2_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMsa1506575"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_3_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/jfprhc-2012-100311"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_4_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2008.09.003"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_5_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10995-010-0631-6"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_6_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.whi.2011.08.009"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_7_2","first-page":"161","article-title":"The return to ovulation following early abortion: A comparison between vacuum aspiration and prostaglandin","volume":"118","author":"Cameron IT","year":"1988","unstructured":"Cameron IT, , Baird DT. The return to ovulation following early abortion: A comparison between vacuum aspiration and prostaglandin. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh), 1988; 118:161\u2013167.","journal-title":"Acta Endocrinol (Copenh)"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_8_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0002-9378(79)90383-1"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_9_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2011.01.013"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_10_2","first-page":"1","article-title":"U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016","volume":"65","author":"Curtis KM","year":"2016","unstructured":"Curtis KM, , Tepper NK, , Jatlaoui TC, et al. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Recomm Rep, 2016; 65:1\u2013103.","journal-title":"MMWR Recomm Rep Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Recomm Rep"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_11_2","unstructured":"Frost J Frohwirth L Zolna M. Contraceptive Needs and Services 2014 Update New York: Guttmacher Institute. Available at: www.guttmacher.org\/report\/contraceptive-needs-and-services-2014-update. Accessed February2 2016."},{"key":"e_1_3_3_12_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(07)61602-X"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_13_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5694\/mja14.00011"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_14_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2011.01.021"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_15_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1363\/psrh.12017"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_16_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e31820563d3"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_17_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1363\/4410012"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_18_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jbi.2008.08.010"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_19_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/aje\/kwh090"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_20_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2011.05.009"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_21_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000192170.16746.ea"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_22_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/109019819502200104"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_23_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000264550.41242.f2"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_24_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0010-7824(02)00351-7"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_25_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1011600"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_26_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2010.10.005"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_27_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2010.06.018"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_28_2","first-page":"CD001777","article-title":"Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices","volume":"7","author":"Okusanya BO","year":"2014","unstructured":"Okusanya BO, , Oduwole O, , Effa EE. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014; 7:CD001777.","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_29_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2008.03.013"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_30_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/jfprhc-2014-101059"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_31_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2011.07.013"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_32_2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.2105\/AJPH.2013.301416"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_33_2","first-page":"1","article-title":"Use of contraception in the United States: 1982\u20132008","volume":"29","author":"Mosher WD","year":"2010","unstructured":"Mosher WD, , Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982\u20132008. Vital Health Stat 23. 2010; 29:1\u201344.","journal-title":"Vital Health Stat 23"},{"key":"e_1_3_3_34_2","first-page":"1","article-title":"Current contraceptive status mong women aged 15\u201344: United States, 2011\u20132013","volume":"173","author":"Daniels K","year":"2014","unstructured":"Daniels K, , Daugherty J, , Jones J. Current contraceptive status mong women aged 15\u201344: United States, 2011\u20132013. NCHS Data Brief, 2014; 173:1\u20138.","journal-title":"NCHS Data Brief"}],"container-title":["Journal of Women's Health"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/full-xml\/10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210","content-type":"application\/xml","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,5,1]],"date-time":"2026-05-01T17:49:14Z","timestamp":1777657754000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/journals.sagepub.com\/doi\/10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,5]]},"references-count":33,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,5]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1089\/jwh.2018.7210","relation":{},"ISSN":["1540-9996","1931-843X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1540-9996","type":"print"},{"value":"1931-843X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,5]]}}}