Debbie Postlethwaite RNP, MPH Adekemi Ogultala, MD Maqdooda Merchant MSc, MA
Presenter Disclosure Presenter: Debbie Postlethwaite RNP, MPH No Relationships to Disclose This study was funded by: Kaiser Permanente Community Benefits Program
Background Long Acting Reversible Contraception (LARC) IUC: Levonorgestrel 20 and Copper-T 380 A SCI: Etonogestrel Subdermal Contraceptive Implant 49% of US pregnancies have remained unintended since Healthy People 2020 goal: 56% planned pregnancies 1 IUC: most cost-effective LARC within 12 months of use 2 SCI: lowest failure rate (0.05%) within 12 months 2,3 ACOG supports the use of LARC in adolescent and young women 4 1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People Washington, DC. Available at (accessed 9/30/2011) 2. Trussell J, Lalla AM, DoanQV, et al. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception, 2009, 79: Trussell J. Contraceptive Failures in the United States. Contraception, 2011; 83: Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices. ACOG Practice Bulletin, Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetricians-Gynecologists, 121; Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011 (118), 1:
Research Question What factors contribute to the 12 month continuation rate of LARC use in adolescents & young adults compared to adult women? Goal: To gain knowledge about the role that post-insertion counseling plays, demographic and clinical variables in predicting higher retention/continuation of LARC use in adolescent & young compared to adult women at KPNC.
Methods Study design: Retrospective Cohort study of LARC users between 1/1/2007 to 12/31/2008 with minimum of 12 months membership following LARC insertion Study subjects: Random proportional stratified sampling of 303 KPNC women with an SCI or IUC insertion; stratified by age: vs and by method Data Collection: Electronic database extraction and detailed medical record review Variables of interest: Demographic and Clinical : age, race, living situation, and marital status, Gravidity, Parity, BMI Reported side effects and complications (< 3, 4-6, 7-12 mo.) Post-insertion counseling (< 3, 4-6, 7-12 mo.) Early LARC removal by time period and reason for removal Analysis Plan: Descriptive, Chi-square and Fisher Exact tests, Wilcoxon Rank Test, Multtest, and Multivariable logistic regression
Results * Other: Islander, Native American, Multi-racial Characteristics Percent (N) Total N = 303 Age % (108) % (195) Race Asian13.5% (41) Black7.3% (22) Hispanic 33.0% (100) Other* 4.0% (12) White33.3% (101) Missing8.9% (27) Living Situation/Marital Status Single/Separated/Divorced37.3% (113) Married/Living with Partner45.2% (137) Other/Unknown17.5% (53) Gravidity 023.0% (70) % (121) 319.5% (59) > 417.5% (53) Table 1: Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of LARC Users
Table 1: Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of LARC Users (continued) CharacteristicsPercent (N) Total N = 303 Parity % (87) % (163) ≥3 17.5% (53) BMI (Mean) [Median] (27.3) [26.2] <2541.9% (127) % (92) >3027.7% (84) LARC Type by Age Group Cu-T IUC, Age % (21) Cu-T IUC, Age % (80) LNG-IUC, Age % (26) LNG-IUC Age % (75) SCI, Age % (61) SCI, Age % (40)
Table 2: Early LARC Removal by Demographic and Clinical Characteristics CharacteristicsOutcomes Early LARC Removal Within 12 Months No Early LARC Removal P Value † Age % (Total N=303) % (25)76.9% (83) % (39)80.0% (156) Race % (Total N=303) Asian 17.1% (7)82.9% (34) 0.82 Black (non-Hispanic) 27.3% (6) 72.7% (16) Hispanic 23.0% (23)77.0% (77) White (non-Hispanic) 18.8% (19)81.2% (82) Other* 23.1% (9)76.9% (30) Living Situation/Marital Status Single/Separated/Divorced17.7% (20)82.3% (93) 0.42 Married/Living with Partner21.9% (30)78.1% (107) Other/Unknown26.4% (14)73.6% (39) Gravidity % (Total N=303) 017.4% (12)82.6% (57) % (30)75.2% (91) > 319.5% (22)80.5% (91) Parity % (Total N=303) 022.1% (19)77.9% (67) % (36)77.9% (127) > 316.7% (9)83.3% (45) BMI % (Total N=303) < % (24)81.1% 103) % (21)77.1% (71) > % (19)77.4% (65) * Other race: Islander, Native American, Multi-racial, missing † P values calculated using Chi-Square tests
Early Removal by LARC Type and Age CharacteristicsOutcomes Early Removal No Early Removal P value* LARC Type by Age Category SCI, Age % (17)72.1% (44)0.45 SCI, Age % (14)65.0% (26) Cu-T IUC, Age % (4)81.0% (17)0.75 Cu-T IUC, Age % (13)83.8% (67) LNG IUC, Age % (4)84.6% (22)1.00 LNG IUC, Age % (12)84.0% (63) IUC: Cu-T vs. LNC Cu-T16.8% (17)83.2% (84) 0.85 LNG15.8% (16)84.2% (85) LARC: IUC vs. LARC Any IUC16.3% (33) 83.7% (169)0.004 SCI30.7% (31)69.3% (70) * P values calculated using Chi-Square tests
Early LARC Removal by Reported Complaints CharacteristicOutcome Early Removal No Early Removal P value* Reported Complaints Bleeding/Any Time Period35.5% (33)64.5% (60)< Pain/ Any Time Period34.0% (16)66.0% (31) 0.02 Amenorrhea/Any Time Period26.7% (8)73.3% (22) 0.43 Other † /Any Time period33.3% (30)66.7% (60) Reported Bleeding Complaints by Time Period < 3 months33.3% (21)66.7% (42) months33.3% (5)66.7% (10) 0.32 ‡ 7-12 months48.4% (15)51.6% (16) <0.001 * P values calculated using Chi-Square tests † Other complaints included: headaches, weight gain, mood changes or depression ‡ P value calculated using Fisher Exact test
Reported Complaints, Retention Counseling and Early LARC Removal * Complaints included: unscheduled bleeding, amenorrhea, pelvic or LARC insertion site pain, headaches, weight gain, depression or mood changes † Outcome timeframes: < 3 months, 4-6 months, 7-12 months after LARC insertion Complaints and CounselingAge CategoryP value* Age: 15-24Age: Any Complaint †, Any Timeframe ‡ ; % (N) 57.4% (62)58.5% (114)0.86 Retention Counseling, Any Timeframe ‡ % (N) 40.7% (44)43.1% (84)0.69 There were no statistical differences in early LARC removal among women with complaints + retention counseling (N=114) by: Age (15-24: 28.9% vs : 22.4%; p=0.44) LARC type (Cu-T IUC: 20.7%, LNG-IUC: 22.0%, SCI: 31.4%; p=0.52) BMI ( 30: 24.1%; p=0.19)
Predictors of Early SCI Removal Predictive CharacteristicsOdds* Ratio Confidence Interval P value* Age (categorical) vs – Cu-T IUC vs. SCI – 0.84< 0.02 LNG IUC vs. SCI – 0.63< BMI – Any Reported Bleeding – Any Reported Pain – * ORs, Confidence Intervals and P-values calculated with logistic regression
Strengths and Limitations Strengths: Large cohort of adolescent, young adult and adult LARC users with diverse demographic and clinical characteristics KPNC Integrated electronic medical records and databases Documentation of clinical visits, phone visits and secure exchanges between patient and healthcare provider Limitations Integrated Health Care System (public or privately insured) population limiting generalizability Retrospective study design Limited documentation of LARC retention counseling encounters
Conclusion Reported side effects (bleeding, pain) were strong predictors of early LARC removal, regardless of method type or age group of user Post-insertion counseling did not significantly affect LARC continuation regardless of age group or method type IUC use, compared to SCI use, had higher continuation rates in both adolescent/young and adult women LARC methods appeared to be as acceptable to adolescent/young women as they were to adult women LARC methods have potential to reduce unintended US pregnancies