title: Agreement between patient-reported and provider-reported choice of contraceptive method among family planning patients in New York City: implications for public health.
abstract: National data on choice of contraceptive method and subsequent use are critical for monitoring progress toward meeting public health goals in reducing unintended pregnancy in the US. Yet few studies have focused on the reliability of clinically-reported or patient-reported measures of choice of contraceptive method for the range of available contraceptive methods. Among 1,844 women receiving reproductive health care at two federally funded centers in New York City, choice of contraceptive method at the end of the visit from two data sources was compared, ie, patient self-report, and provider-report as recorded in the clinical-administrative database. Agreement between the two data sources was assessed for the sample. Sociodemographic predictors of agreement were assessed using logistic regression. Agreement between the data sources was also assessed on a method-by-method basis using positive specific agreement. Participants were predominantly Latina (69%), foreign-born (76%), and low-income (99% with incomes <200% federal poverty level). Agreement of patient-reported and provider-reported contraceptive choice was highest for hormonal methods (positive specific agreement 94.0%) and intrauterine devices (89.9%), and lowest for condoms (53.5%). In the logistic regression model, agreement was lower among teens aged 16-19 years compared with women aged 25+ years (odds ratio 0.74; 95% confidence interval 0.55-0.99). Because teens are more likely to rely on condoms, the logistic regression model was repeated, adjusting for provider report of condom choice; after adjustment, no sociodemographic differences in agreement were observed. National data sources or studies relying on provider-reported method choice to derive estimates of contraceptive prevalence may overestimate choice of condoms. Our findings raise the question of whether condom choice can be accurately assessed by a single open-ended measure of choice of contraceptive method.
authors.affiliation: Research and Evaluation Unit, Public Health Solutions, New York, NY, USA.
authors.forename: Alicia
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ventura
authors.forename: Samantha
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Garbers
authors.forename: Allison
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Meserve
authors.forename: Mary Ann
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Chiasson
keywords: condoms; contraception; methodology; service providers
references.citation: Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011 Sep;43(3):181-7
references.pmid: 21884386
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;202(3):214-20
references.pmid: 20207237
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):241-7
references.pmid: 11814504
references.citation: J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010 Dec;19(12):2203-10
references.pmid: 21034277
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Mar;109(3):678-86
references.pmid: 17329520
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 2003 Feb;93(2):248-55
references.pmid: 12554578
references.citation: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2000 Oct;14(4):309-13
references.pmid: 11101017
references.citation: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2011 Nov-Dec;40(6):775-81
references.pmid: 22092984
references.citation: J Adolesc Health. 2008 Oct;43(4):364-71
references.pmid: 18809134
references.citation: Fam Plann Perspect. 1991 Jul-Aug;23(4):150-4
references.pmid: 1936216
references.citation: Sex Transm Dis. 2011 May;38(5):445-7
references.pmid: 21099733
references.citation: Sex Transm Dis. 2003 Jul;30(7):556-61
references.pmid: 12838083
references.citation: J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2008 Aug;19(3):778-96
references.pmid: 18677070
references.citation: Contraception. 2011 Nov;84(5):478-85
references.pmid: 22018121
references.citation: Vital Health Stat 23. 2010 Aug;(29):1-44
references.pmid: 20939159
references.citation: Contraception. 2008 Jan;77(1):1-5
references.pmid: 18082659
references.citation: Reprod Health. 2010 Jun 11;7:9
references.pmid: 20540738
references.citation: J Sex Res. 2005 May;42(2):159-66
references.pmid: 16123846
references.citation: J Community Health Nurs. 2012;29(3):163-72
references.pmid: 22857405
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 1993 Aug;22(4):692-7
references.pmid: 8225745
references.citation: Stud Fam Plann. 2008 Mar;39(1):18-38
references.pmid: 18540521
references.citation: Contraception. 2013 Feb;87(2):154-61
references.pmid: 22959904
references.citation: Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002 Jul-Aug;34(4):206-11
references.pmid: 12214911
references.citation: Contraception. 2004 Jul;70(1):31-9
references.pmid: 15208050
references.citation: Nurs Res. 2011 May-Jun;60(3 Suppl):S68-78
references.pmid: 21543964
references.citation: Epidemiol Rev. 2010;32:152-74
references.pmid: 20570955
references.citation: Contraception. 2007 Mar;75(3):168-70
references.pmid: 17303484
references.citation: Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006 Jun;38(2):90-6
references.pmid: 16772190
references.citation: Contraception. 2012 Oct;86(4):383-90
references.pmid: 22402258
references.citation: Contraception. 1992 May;45(5):399-408
references.pmid: 1623713
references.citation: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 May-Jun;12(3):296-8
references.pmid: 15684123
references.citation: Public Health Rep. 2006 Mar-Apr;121(2):155-9
references.pmid: 16528948
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Nov;116(5):1018-9
references.pmid: 20966682
references.citation: Vital Health Stat 2. 2010 Jun;(150):1-36
references.pmid: 20928970
references.citation: Vital Health Stat 23. 2005 Dec;(25):1-160
references.pmid: 16532609
references.citation: J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2011 Nov-Dec;40(6):782-93
references.pmid: 22092349
references.citation: Matern Child Health J. 2002 Dec;6(4):237-46
references.pmid: 12512765