背景:健康人倡议是一项全国性的努力,旨在每十年在美国制定公共卫生目标。在其最新的迭代中,2030年健康人,与避孕相关的关键目标侧重于在有意外怀孕风险的妇女中增加使用有效的节育(被归类为对预防怀孕最有效或中等有效的避孕方法)。这种狭隘的关注与性健康和生殖健康平等不一致,认识到个人自我定义的避孕药具需求对于监测避孕药具的获取以及设计政策和方案战略以增加获取至关重要。
目的:我们旨在比较2种人口水平的避孕药具获取指标:常规指标,在被认为有意外怀孕风险的人群中,使用被认为对预防怀孕最有效或中等有效的避孕方法(接近健康人群2030方法),和以人为中心的度量标准,在当前和未来的避孕使用者中使用首选的避孕方法。
方法:我们使用2022年收集的具有全国代表性的数据来构建避孕药具获取的2个指标;总体样本包括出生时没有使用女性绝育或以其他方式感染并且没有怀孕或试图怀孕的女性(未加权N=2760;人口估计:4390万)。我们进行了比较分析,通过检查个人是否满足两个指标的分母的纳入标准,来检查指标的趋同和背离,都不是度量,只有传统的度量标准,或仅以人为中心的指标。
结果:比较两种方法来测量避孕方法,我们发现,79%的受访者被纳入或排除在这两个指标之外(反映出,当个体被两个指标同等对待时,这些指标趋同).其余21%代表指标的差异,估计有570万不想使用避孕方法的个体仅包括在常规公分母中,估计有350万正在使用或想使用避孕方法但从未将阴茎阴道性交仅包括在以人为中心的公分母中。在仅包含在常规度量中的那些中,100%是不使用避孕药的非使用者,他们也不想。在仅包括在以人为中心的度量中的那些中,目前有68%的人使用避孕方法。尽管他们目前或希望使用避孕药具,这些人被排除在常规指标之外,因为他们从未有过阴茎-阴道性行为.
结论:我们的分析强调,经常使用的避孕药具获取指标错过了数百万人的需求,同时包括了非使用者的内容,并排除了那些正在使用或想要使用从未发生过性行为的避孕药具的人。记录和量化当前评估避孕方法与更多以人为中心的方法之间的差距,有助于清楚地确定方案和政策努力应集中在哪里。
BACKGROUND: The Healthy People initiative is a national effort to lay out public health
goals in the United States every decade. In its latest iteration, Healthy People 2030, key
goals related to contraception focus on increasing the use of effective birth control (contraceptive methods classified as most or moderately effective for pregnancy prevention) among women at risk of unintended pregnancy. This narrow focus is misaligned with sexual and reproductive health equity, which recognizes that individuals\' self-defined contraceptive needs are critical for monitoring contraceptive access and designing policy and programmatic strategies to increase access.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare 2 population-level metrics of contraceptive access: a conventional metric, use of contraceptive methods considered most or moderately effective for pregnancy prevention among those considered at risk of unintended pregnancy (approximating the Healthy People 2030 approach), and a person-centered metric, use of preferred contraceptive method among current and prospective contraceptive users.
METHODS: We used nationally representative data collected in 2022 to construct the 2 metrics of contraceptive access; the overall sample included individuals assigned female at birth not using female sterilization or otherwise infecund and who were not pregnant or trying to become pregnant (unweighted N=2760; population estimate: 43.9 million). We conducted a comparative analysis to examine the convergence and divergence of the metrics by examining whether individuals met the inclusion criteria for the denominators of both metrics, neither metric, only the conventional metric, or only the person-centered metric.
RESULTS: Comparing the 2 approaches to measuring contraceptive access, we found that 79% of respondents were either included in or excluded from both metrics (reflecting that the metrics converged when individuals were treated the same by both). The remaining 21% represented divergence in the metrics, with an estimated 5.7 million individuals who did not want to use contraception included only in the conventional metric denominator and an estimated 3.5 million individuals who were using or wanted to use contraception but had never had penile-vaginal sex included only in the person-centered metric denominator. Among those included only in the conventional metric, 100% were content nonusers-individuals who were not using contraception, nor did they want to. Among those included only in the person-centered metric, 68% were currently using contraception. Despite their current or desired contraceptive use, these individuals were excluded from the conventional metric because they had never had penile-vaginal sex.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis highlights that a frequently used metric of contraceptive access misses the needs of millions of people by simultaneously including content nonusers and excluding those who are using or want to use contraception who have never had sex. Documenting and quantifying the gap between current approaches to assessing contraceptive access and more person-centered ones helps clearly identify where programmatic and policy efforts should focus going forward.