Contraceptive Use Measured in a National Population-Based Approach: Cross-Sectional Study of Administrative Versus Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Prescribed contraception is used worldwide by over 400 million women of reproductive age. Monitoring contraceptive use is a major public health issue that usually relies on population-based surveys. However, these surveys are conducted on average every 6 years and do not allow close follow-up of contraceptive use. Moreover, their sample size is often too limited for the study of specific population subgroups such as people with low income. Health administrative data could be an innovative and less costly source to study contraceptive use. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the potential of health administrative data to study prescribed contraceptive use and compare these data with observations based on survey data. METHODS: We selected all women aged 15-49 years, covered by French health insurance and living in France, in the health administrative database, which covers 98% of the resident population (n=14,788,124), and in the last French population-based representative survey, the Health Barometer Survey, conducted in 2016 (n=4285). In health administrative data, contraceptive use was recorded with detailed information on the product delivered, whereas in the survey, it was self-declared by the women. In both sources, the prevalence of contraceptive use was estimated globally for all prescribed contraceptives and by type of contraceptive: oral contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and implants. Prevalences were analyzed by age. RESULTS: There were more low-income women in health administrative data than in the population-based survey (1,576,066/14,770,256, 11% vs 188/4285, 7%, respectively; P<.001). In health administrative data, 47.6% (7034,710/14,770,256; 95% CI 47.6%-47.7%) of women aged 15-49 years used a prescribed contraceptive versus 50.5% (2297/4285; 95% CI 49.1%-52.0%) in the population-based survey. Considering prevalences by the type of contraceptive in health administrative data versus survey data, they were 26.9% (95% CI 26.9%-26.9%) versus 27.7% (95% CI 26.4%-29.0%) for oral contraceptives, 17.7% (95% CI 17.7%-17.8%) versus 19.6% (95% CI 18.5%-20.8%) for IUDs, and 3% (95% CI 3.0%-3.0%) versus 3.2% (95% CI 2.7%-3.7%) for implants. In both sources, the same overall tendency in prevalence was observed for these 3 contraceptives. Implants remained little used at all ages, oral contraceptives were highly used among young women, whereas IUD use was low among young women. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with survey data, health administrative data exhibited the same overall tendencies for oral contraceptives, IUDs, and implants. One of the main strengths of health administrative data is the high quality of information on contraceptive use and the large number of observations, allowing studies of subgroups of population. Health administrative data therefore appear as a promising new source to monitor contraception in a population-based approach. They could open new perspectives for research and be a valuable new asset to guide public policies on reproductive and sexual health.

Low-income women and use of prescribed contraceptives in the context of full health insurance coverage in France, 2019.

OBJECTIVE: Major socioeconomic differences in contraceptive use are observed in high-income countries. Cost is often cited as a main factor to explain these differences but other barriers may also exist. Our aim was to compare prescribed contraceptive use among low-income and non-low-income women in a national context of full health insurance coverage. STUDY DESIGN: In the French national health insurance database, we selected all women (14.8 million) aged 15-49 years living in France in 2019. We compared the prevalence of use of each prescribed contraceptive between low-income and non-low-income women: oral contraceptives, copper intrauterine devices (IUDs), the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), and implants. RESULTS: In the study population, 11% had a low income. Fewer low-income women used prescribed contraceptives than non-low-income women (36% vs. 46%, p < 0.001). When using a contraceptive, low-income women used a different method: at 20-24 years old, they used less oral contraceptives (60% vs. 77%, p < 0.001) and more implants (22% vs. 9%, p < 0.001), while at 40-44 years, they used less levonorgestrel intrauterine systems (18% vs. 30%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Even in a national context of free access to medical care for low-income women, they use less and different prescribed contraceptives than non-low-income women. These results could reflect barriers other than financial cost to the use of prescribed contraceptives by low-income women. IMPLICATIONS: Financial barriers need to be removed in order to increase contraceptive use. However, this may not be sufficient and further research should explore barriers that low-income women may encounter in accessing and choosing their contraception.