Skip to main content

Guttmacher Institute

Donate Now

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email
Guttmacher Institute

Good reproductive health policy starts with credible research

 

Donate Now

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Email

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • COVID-19 impact
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • U.S. policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • U.S.

Articles

  • Global research
  • U.S. research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Op-eds & external blogs

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • U.S.
  • U.S. State Laws and Policies

Data & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-Reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

U.S.

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work By Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Donate stock or securites
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • Annual Report

Awards and Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship

Search form

Contraception
April 2018

Multiple contraceptive method use and prevalence of fertility awareness based method use in the United States, 2013–2015

Chelsea Polis,Guttmacher Institute
Rachel K. Jones,Guttmacher Institute
The time is now. Will you stand up for reproductive health and rights?
Donate Now
First published online: April 25, 2018 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2018.04.013
Objectives

Contraceptive prevalence in the United States is typically calculated according to the most effective method of contraception reported. This could theoretically underestimate the number of women using fertility-awareness based methods (FABMs), including those who use other methods (e.g., condoms) during the fertile window, but the extent of any such underestimation has not been assessed.


Study design

We used data from the 2013–2015 National Survey of Family Growth to examine the extent to which women report use of an FABM alone or with other methods. We investigated FABM use patterns and compared demographic profiles of FABM users versus other contraceptive users. We considered how to most appropriately define FABM prevalence.


Results

One in six (16.5%) female contraceptors 15–44 reported use of multiple contraceptive methods in their month of interview. Among women reporting current FABM use, 67% used it alone or with withdrawal, 24% also used condoms or emergency contraception, and 9% also used hormonal contraception or sterilization. An FABM was the most effective method reported for 2.2% of current contraceptive users; while 3.2% of contraceptors reported any current FABM use. We posit an FABM prevalence of 3% (1,113,000 users) among US female contraceptors (2013–2015). FABM users had similar sociodemographic characteristics as other method users, but were more likely married.


Conclusions

Currently, consideration of multiple method use has modest implications for estimation of FABM prevalence among contraceptors (i.e., an increase from 2.2% to 3%). However, multiple method use patterns with FABMs may merit special consideration if FABM use continues to increase.


Implications

Researchers and providers need to be familiar with the unique patterns of use among FABM users in order to more effectively measure and counsel about these methods.

Article available at Contraception
Printer-friendly version

Share

FacebookTwitterEmail

Topic

United States

  • Contraception

Geography

  • Northern America: United States
    • Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
Guttmacher Institute
Reproductive rights are under attack. Will you help us fight back with facts?
Donate Now
Follow Guttmacher:

Connect With Us

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Footer Menu

  • Privacy Policy
© 2022 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.

Get Our Updates