Next Article in Journal
University Students Eating Habits: Normal Semester vs. Lockdown Period Caused by COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Combining Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Treatment and an Exercise Program on Fragility in a Population with Multiple Sclerosis: Cross-Over Design Trial
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Factors Associated with Uptake of Effective and Ineffective Contraceptives among Polish Women during the First Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic

1
Department of Biomedical Aspects of Development and Sexology, Faculty of Education, Warsaw University, 00-561 Warsaw, Poland
2
Department of Humanization in Medicine and Sexology, Collegium Medicum, University of Zielona Gora, 65-729 Zielona Gora, Poland
3
Institute of Pedagogy, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Zielona Gora, 65-729 Zielona Gora, Poland
4
1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of Warsaw, 02-015 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(19), 12748; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912748
Submission received: 5 September 2022 / Revised: 1 October 2022 / Accepted: 3 October 2022 / Published: 5 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Health Behavior, Chronic Disease and Health Promotion)

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic has burdened the healthcare system and influenced individuals’ health-related choices. The aim of the study was to estimate the prevalence and to identify the correlates of the use of more and less effective contraceptive methods among Poles in the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic. The cross-sectional online study was conducted among the representative sample of 642 female respondents aged 18–49. Three groups of contraception choices (only effective methods—42.2%, mixed effective and ineffective methods—26.8%, none—31.0%) were distinguished and 11 potential determinants were considered. One in ten women declared having difficulty in accessing contraception during the first months of the pandemic. A multinomial logistic regression model explained 48.7% of the variation in contraceptive method choice. Both effective and ineffective methods were more often declared by young women, and less often in case of lower education, planning children or subjective no need for contraception. In addition, factors that reduced the chance of effective contraception were poor financial situation, already having children and a relatively higher degree of religiosity. The study confirmed that a significant share of Polish women do not opt for effective methods of contraception. Their choices had strong demographic, social and cultural determinants.

1. Introduction

Conscious family planning, including facilitating access to contraception and improving sexual education, constitutes one of the basic assumptions of strategies to improve reproductive health [1].
Epidemiological analyses carried out in the USA show that the percentage of unplanned pregnancies in the general population may be as high as 45% [2]. Moreover, 40% of women who have an unplanned pregnancy decide to terminate it [3]. Worldwide, it is estimated that 68,000 women die annually due to complications from “unsafe” pregnancy terminations [4]. Attention should also be paid to the increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases and cervical cancer in patients who do not use any methods of birth control [5].
Population studies conducted in Poland since 1997 show improvement in the use of contraception methods. We observe an increased use of effective methods and those that additionally protect against sexually transmitted diseases (condoms). However, there is still a high percentage of couples not using any reliable contraception [6].
Choosing the right method of contraception is usually a complex process that requires taking into account an individual’s preferences and procreation plans, health issues and the expected effectiveness of the particular methods [7]. “Long-acting reversible contraceptives” (LARC), such as intrauterine devices (IUD) or subdermal implants, have the lowest failure rates of all methods (1%), while condoms and withdrawal carried the highest probabilities of failure (13% and 20%, respectively) [8]. Compared with the latter methods, long-acting reversible contraceptives do not require any additional measures on the part of the patient to achieve effectiveness. This is one reason these methods are the most effective (99%) method of contraception [9].
An important background for assessing the level of access to contraception in Poland compared to other countries is the periodically (since 2017) published Contraception Policy Atlas Europe, an initiative of the European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual and Reproductive Rights (EPF). The purpose of these studies is to track government policies on access to contraceptive supplies, family planning counselling and the provision of online information on contraception. All countries are analysed on the basis of 16 criteria, sub-divided into the three categories mentioned above, each country is allocated an overall score which corresponds to a specific colour ranging from green to light green for the best scoring countries, to yellow, orange and red for the worst performers. In light of the latest fifth edition of this atlas launched on February 2022, Poland ranks last among the 46 countries in the WHO European Region. Eastern EU countries, including some of Poland’s neighbours (Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia), are mentioned among the worst performing states [10].
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a global crisis. This situation has worsened access to healthcare, including access to prescription medicines [11,12]. It is worth emphasizing that in Poland at present, hormonal methods of contraception, including emergency contraception, are only available by prescription.
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, most professional health associations and organisations published recommendations on the need for proper contraceptive counselling to be available, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring continued access to effective methods of contraception [13]. Nevertheless, the pandemic could make contraceptive counselling difficult. The pandemic could also be responsible for changing reproductive plans, which particularly affects the poorer social groups [14,15].
The aim of the current study was to assess contraception selection factors and the use of contraceptive methods by women in the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The study was based on the following research questions:
  • How often do women choose effective and ineffective contraceptive methods?
  • Which demographic, social, cultural, and sexual factors correlate with decisions about the choice of more or less effective family planning method in the univariate analysis?
  • Which variables predict that choice in the multivariate analysis?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

The data were collected as part of the project “Health and sexual life of Polish adults in the times of COVID”. The online survey was conducted at the end of May and the beginning of June 2020. The project was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Education of the University of Warsaw (opinion no. 6/2020).
Our study population was selected from a nationwide panel sample of 100,000 registered by an external contractor (IQS Company). The national representativeness of the sample was structured by sex, age, and place of residence (voivodship, population size of the town). The research survey remained open until the target sample of 3000 respondents was reached. Among them, 892 women aged 18–49 were identified, and then a subgroup of 642 women was selected who described themselves as heterosexual or bisexual, who were not pregnant at the time of the survey and had engaged in sexual activity in the 3 months prior to the survey. Among them, 450 women indicated they had used some form of contraception and marked all the methods that concerned them at the time.

2.2. Questionnaire

The research tool was an original questionnaire consisting of 16 thematic sections on taking up sexual activity, contraception, relationship functioning and sociodemographic data.
The survey participants were asked; What methods of pregnancy prevention have you (you and your partner) used in the past 3 months? Respondents could choose from a list of ten methods or enter other, unlisted methods. Contraceptive methods were divided into two groups, characterised by high and low effectiveness, according to WHO recommendations [16], and classified using the Pearl Index (defined as the number of unintended pregnancies within one year, in 100 woman who use a particular method) [17].
The demographic and social characteristics surveyed included: age, level of education, size of the town (in 7 categories, coded into two groups), employment status and their household economic status. In assessing their economic situation, respondents answered to what extent they could meet their daily needs, whether they could afford to spend more, or whether they could make savings and investments. They were divided into three groups corresponding to a bad, average or good, and very good material situation. In determining attitudes to faith, respondents’ declarations about religious practice were also considered. In addition, variables related to relationships and relationship status, the number of sexual partners, having children and childbearing plans, as well as any difficulties experienced in accessing contraceptives during the pandemic were considered.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics are given as frequencies and percentages. The main outcome was the division of the study population into three groups according to the effectiveness of contraception (i.e., high-performing methods, either low-performing methods or both effective and ineffective methods, and not using contraception). The Pearson chi-square test was used to compare these groups in relation to demographic, social and related to sexuality or reproductive health factors. When interpreting results presented in larger contingency tables, we analysed adjusted standardized residuals, where the absolute value > 1.96 corresponds to a significance of p < 0.05. In the multivariate analysis, the multinomial logistic regression model was estimated, with no users as the reference category. Goodness-of-fit was estimated by calculating Nagelkerke pseudo R2, where the value above 0.7 is recommended [18]. Regression analysis results are presented as adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
The statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, v. 26.0. (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for analysis.

3. Results

In the group of 642 respondents, the mean age was 33.9 years (SD = 8.8). Most of the respondents declared that they were believers (81.0%, with 35.5% being non-practitioners) and were in a permanent relationship lasting at least 6 months (91.9%). Most of the surveyed women had children (73.7%). Detailed data on the respondents are presented in Table 1.
Table 2 presents the share of not mutually exclusive contraceptive methods used in the last three months, broken down into high and low effectiveness methods. The most frequently used method of contraception in the study group was a condom (63.2%). Among the highly effective methods, hormonal agents were also used relatively often—34.2% (most often in the form of tablets). In the case of low-efficiency methods, the most common was the intermittent intercourse (30.4%). So-called natural methods were indicated by 12.5% of the respondents.
Table 3 contains information on the preferences regarding the contraception in three predefined groups and according to selected factors.
A post hoc analysis using the adjusted residuals method identified factors for which the frequency of effective, ineffective or contraceptive avoidance methods differed significantly from the population average. Positive residuals here means a frequency higher than expected. It was shown that the frequency of use of effective methods was particularly high compared to the surveyed population among women: with higher education (rest 3.6), in good financial situation (2.8), non-believers (3.2) and not planning to have children (2.9). Ineffective methods were particularly common compared to other groups among women with a high school education (rest 3.1), believers but irregular practitioners (2.4) and those planning procreation but not in the near future (2.4). Contraception abandonment was particularly common among: the oldest women aged 42 and over (rest 2.7), believers but not practicing (2.6), planning to have a child in the near future (3.5), and recognizing that they do not need contraception (13.2). It is also worth noting the groups where contraception avoidance was noted to be much less frequent than the population average. In this case, the adjusted residual was high but negative. To be mentioned here are women: the youngest, i.e., under 25 years of age (the rest −3.2), with secondary or higher education (−3.9 and −3.4, respectively), urban residents (−3.1), living in good or very good material conditions (−2.8), studying (−2.7), having one partner in life (−2.9), non-believers (−2.7), planning a pregnancy a little later (−3.1, and reporting no difficulties in accessing contraception (−11.2).
The results of the multinomial logistic regression model estimation can be found in Table 4. They allow to identify factors that increase the chance of using effective (model 1) and ineffective (model) contraceptive methods, taking as a reference group women also sexually active but not using any birth control methods. In both models, the chance increased in the youngest group compared to the oldest one, but the effect was stronger in model 1. In both models, the chance also decreased in the group with less than secondary education, compared to a higher education, in the case of wanting to have a child in the next two years and in the case of declaring no need for contraception. Only in model 1 was it shown that less frequent use of effective methods is associated with living in rural areas, poor financial situation and already having children. There was also an association with attitude toward faith. Compared to non-believing women, believing and non-practicing women were significantly less likely to use effective contraception. According to the Nagelkerke pseudo R-sq coefficient, this model explains 48.7% of the variability in the method of contraception choice.
The contraceptive models (Figure 1) were compared for women not planning and planning to have children with a strong interaction with age confirmed (Figure 1). An effective model of contraception is significantly more often used by respondents aged 26–34 who do not plan to have a child in the next two years and younger ones (64.4% and 52.6%, respectively). At the same time, in the group considering to procreate, the oldest women reported effective methods of contraception less frequently (15.0%) followed by women aged 26–35 (29.1%).

4. Discussion

According to the best available knowledge, the presented study is the first in Poland and in this part of Europe that introduced the preferences and predictors regarding the choice of individual contraceptive methods during the COVID-19 pandemic. The advantage of this research is the representativeness of the sample, that allows to generalize the obtained results for the entire population of Polish women of childbearing age.
The most frequently used contraceptive method among the study group was the condom (63.2%), which dominates over the other methods of higher effectiveness, including hormonal agents (34.2%) or the IUD (6% of the respondents). In case of low-efficiency methods, the most frequently used was the intermittent intercourse (30.4%), an extremely unreliable procedure that nowadays should not be considered as a sufficiently effective. Less frequent usage of effective contraceptives seems to be associated with the living in rural areas, poor financial situation and already having children. Moreover, we observed an association with attitude toward faith. Compared to non-believing women, believing and non-practicing women were significantly less likely to use effective contraception. The obtained results suggest that there is still a significant relationship between the question of faith and the usage of particular method of contraception.
Natural disasters and epidemics worsened the availability of and women’s access to healthcare providers and often resulted in lower use of family planning, particularly methods requiring facility-based interaction [19]. Contraceptive counselling during remote consultations does not always seem to be effective [20]. A mathematical model predicted a 10% decline in the use of short and long-acting contraceptive methods in low- and middle-income countries due to reduced access [21]. Despite a disruptive event such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential to ensure that women can have control over their reproductive life and protect the access to contraceptives and family planning services [22].
In the studies carried out on the nationwide representative sample in 2017, people aged 18–49 who had been sexually active in the last 12 months were asked about contraception as in the reported studies [23]. Compared to studies carried out in 2017, in the first period of the pandemic, women significantly less frequently used ineffective methods, i.e., interrupted intercourse (30.4% vs. 17.5%) and a marriage calendar or other natural methods of family planning (12.5% vs. 9.2%), while slightly more effective methods such as condoms (63.2% vs. 67.0%) and hormonal methods, i.e., contraceptive pills (31.5% vs. 35.5%), patches (1.3% vs. 2.5%) and the vaginal ring (1.1% vs. 3.3%).
Our research has confirmed that reproductive health should be studied in the context of many sociodemographic and cultural factors. The authors of the study from Bangladesh obtained similar results on the impact of socioeconomic and demographic factors on the access to family planning. Results showed that factors such as woman’s age, education level, locality, duration of the marriage, ever having been pregnant and the number of children were significantly associated with the usage and the access to family planning during COVID-19 pandemic [24]. Moreover, only 24.42% of the respondents were using oral contraceptive pills compared to 61.7% before the pandemic. Another study reported limited access to prescription and medications during the COVID-19 outbreak [25]. Despite the social-distancing regulations and the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, reproductive healthcare needs in adolescents and young adults are not diminished [26]. Another study has demonstrated the impacts of COVID-19 on family planning access, multiple sexual partnerships, transactional sex, and the disruption of maternal and child health services [27]. The authors concluded that interventions leading to the immediate availability of and access to all sexual and reproductive health services should be prioritized.
A recently published cohort study of over 9784 women in the UK evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to contraception and reproductive plans [28]. The authors emphasized over nine times higher difficulty accessing contraception and two times higher (2.1% vs. 1.3%) proportions of unplanned pregnancies during the lockdown. Another study noted an increase in total demand for self-managed abortion during the pandemic (12% compared with the first 9 months) [29].
On the basis of the obtained results, it can be concluded that the chance of using a more desirable model of contraception as compared to the resignation from contraception decreases in the case of older women (over 35 years of age), people who have less than a vocational education, poor financial situation of the family, and those who do not have children. At the same time, it is difficult to interpret the answers of people who declared that they did not need to get access to birth control methods or refused to answer this question. It should also be carefully interpreted that some factors did not turn out to be significant in the adopted model, such as the type of relationship in which they are currently studied, as it may be related to the age of the respondents (a statistically significant correlation was found between these variables).
Findings from another study aimed at the impact of COVID-19 on family planning services showed discontinuation in a family planning preferred method because of social distancing [30]. All married and cohabiting women were continuing to use their contraceptive method. None had an unplanned pregnancy. On the other hand, 50.5% non-cohabiting or single women had discontinued their short-acting reversible contraceptive method while social distancing, for non-method-related reasons; however, 46.5% non-cohabiting or single women had continued their sexual activity, infringing social distancing rules, and 14.9% had had an unplanned pregnancy, for which they had sought a termination.
The relationship between the age of women and the choice of contraception model drew particular attention during the analysis of the research results. It seems that procreation plans may play an important role here. The comparison of the contraceptive models confirmed this assumption. The study conducted in Turkey revealed that about 32.7% of participants planned to become pregnant before the pandemic, but the number significantly decreased to 5.1% throughout the pandemic, and the rate of contraception use by women significantly also decreased during the pandemic [31].
Since there is an important risk of increasing unplanned pregnancies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this view, we strongly encourage women and healthcare providers to discuss the access to family planning services as a priority service, especially in women who are older, of lower educational level, of poor financial status and within the couples who do not have children yet.
The study is cross-sectional, which makes it impossible to infer cause-and-effect relationships. A significant proportion of the women used multiple methods of contraception. Therefore, it is difficult to assess which method was the dominant one and what was the reason for using several measures (with different effectiveness) in a relatively short period of time. Third, there is no information on the systematic use of methods considered effective. In the case of condoms, the motive for their use may not be so much greater availability in times of limited access to the health care system, but also the desire to prevent STDs.

5. Conclusions

These findings suggest a need for increased attention from medical caregivers for their patients with sexual behaviours that lead to the usage of more effective model of contraception, especially in women who are older, of lower educational level, of poor financial status and within couples who do not have children yet. The use of contraception requires constant monitoring, as population indicators are changing. The most burning goals for the future are to implement comprehensive educational programs and direct the attention of gynaecologists to the issues concerning effective and available contraceptive methods.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.I. and K.W.; data curation, J.M.; formal analysis, Z.I., K.W., D.W., J.M. and M.W.; investigation, Z.I.; methodology, Z.I., K.W. and J.M.; resources, Z.I., K.W. and D.W.; supervision, Z.I., K.W. and M.W.; writing—original draft, K.W., D.W. and J.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board—the Scientific Research Ethics Committee of the University of Warsaw (No. 6/2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to polish law regulation does not allow for public access of medical data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Strategy to accelerate progress towards the attainment of international development goals and targets related to reproductive health. Reprod. Health Matters 2005, 13, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Finer, L.B.; Zolna, M.R. Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 374, 843–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Finer, L.B.; Zolna, M.R. Shifts in intended and unintended pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008. Am. J. Public Health 2014, 104 (Suppl. S1), S43–S48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Shaw, D. The FIGO initiative for the prevention of unsafe abortion. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2010, 110, S17–S19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rada, C. Sexual behaviour and sexual and reproductive health education: A cross-sectional study in Romania. Reprod. Health 2014, 11, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Izdebski, Z. Seksualność Polaków na Początku XXI Wieku: Studium Badawcze; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego: Cracow, Poland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. Schivone, G.B.; Glish, L.L. Contraceptive counseling for continuation and satisfaction. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017, 29, 443–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sundaram, A.; Vaughan, B.; Kost, K.; Bankole, A.; Finer, L.; Singh, S.; Trussell, J. Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006-2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 2017, 49, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Finer, L.B.; Jerman, J.; Kavanaugh, M.L. Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007–2009. Fertil. Steril. 2012, 98, 893–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. European Parliamentary Forum for Sexual & Reproductive Rights. Contraception Policy Atlas Europe. Available online: https://www.epfweb.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/CCeptionInfoA3_EN%202022%20MAR2%20LoRes%20%281%29.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  11. Walker, S.H. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on contraceptive prescribing in general practice: A retrospective analysis of English prescribing data between 2019 and 2020. Contracept. Reprod. Med. 2022, 7, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kumar, N. COVID 19 era: A beginning of upsurge in unwanted pregnancies, unmet need for contraception and other women related issues. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2020, 25, 323–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tolu, L.B.; Feyissa, G.T.; Jeldu, W.G. Guidelines and best practice recommendations on reproductive health services provision amid COVID-19 pandemic: Scoping review. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lin, T.K.; Law, R.; Beaman, J.; Foster, D.G. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on economic security and pregnancy intentions among people at risk of pregnancy. Contraception 2021, 103, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. McCool-Myers, M.; Kozlowski, D.; Jean, V.; Cordes, S.; Gold, H.; Goedken, P. The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on sexual and reproductive health in Georgia, USA: An exploration of behaviors, contraceptive care, and partner abuse. Contraception 2022, 113, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. WHO, U.; Hopkins, J. Family Planning: Global Handbook for Providers; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland; USAID: Washington, DC, USA; Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2012; Available online: http://www.unfpa.org/public/publications/pid/397 (accessed on 7 March 2022).
  17. Pearl, R. Factors in Human Fertility and Their Statistical Evaluation; Lancet: London, UK, 1933. [Google Scholar]
  18. Nagelkerke, N.J.D. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika 1991, 78, 691–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Loewen, S.; Pinchoff, J.; Ngo, T.D.; Hindin, M.J. The impact of natural disasters and epidemics on sexual and reproductive health in low- and middle-income countries: A narrative synthesis. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2021, 157, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Yarger, J.; Hopkins, K.; Elmes, S.; Rossetto, I.; De La Melena, S.; McCulloch, C.E.; White, K.; Harper, C.C. Perceived Access to Contraception via Telemedicine Among Young Adults: Inequities by Food and Housing Insecurity. J. Gen. Intern Med. 2022, 3, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Riley, T.; Sully, E.; Ahmed, Z.; Biddlecom, A. Estimates of the Potential Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sexual and Reproductive Health In Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Int. Perspect. Sex. Reprod. Health 2020, 46, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bellizzi, S.; Pichierri, G.; Napodano, C.M.P.; Picchi, S.; Fiorletta, S.; Panunzi, M.G.; Rubattu, E.; Nivoli, A.; Lorettu, L.; Amadori, A.; et al. Access to modern methods of contraception in Italy: Will the COVID-19 pandemic be aggravating the issue? J. Glob. Health 2020, 10, 020320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Izdebski, Z. Zdrowie i Życie Seksualne Polek i Polaków w Wieku 18-49 lat w 2017 Roku. Studium Badawcze na tle Przemian od 1997 Roku; Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: Warsaw, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  24. Roy, N.; Amin, M.B.; Maliha, M.J.; Sarker, B.; Aktarujjaman, M.; Hossain, E.; Talukdar, G. Prevalence and factors associated with family planning during COVID-19 pandemic in Bangladesh: A cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0257634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Leon-Larios, F.; Silva Reus, I.; Lahoz Pascual, I.; Quilez Conde, J.C.; Puente Martinez, M.J.; Gutierrez Ales, J.; Correa Rancel, M. Women’s Access to Sexual and Reproductive Health Services during Confinement Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wilkinson, T.A.; Kottke, M.J.; Berlan, E.D. Providing Contraception for Young People During a Pandemic Is Essential Health Care. JAMA Pediatr. 2020, 174, 823–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Bolarinwa, O.A.; Ahinkorah, B.O.; Seidu, A.A.; Ameyaw, E.K.; Saeed, B.Q.; Hagan, J.E., Jr.; Nwagbara, U.I. Mapping Evidence of Impacts of COVID-19 Outbreak on Sexual and Reproductive Health: A Scoping Review. Healthcare 2021, 9, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Balachandren, N.; Barrett, G.; Stephenson, J.M.; Yasmin, E.; Mavrelos, D.; Davies, M.; David, A.; Hall, J.A. Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on access to contraception and pregnancy intentions: A national prospective cohort study of the UK population. BMJ Sex. Reprod. Health 2021, 48, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brandell, K.; Vanbenschoten, H.; Parachini, M.; Gomperts, R.; Gemzell-Danielsson, K. Telemedicine as an alternative way to access abortion in Italy and characteristics of requests during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Sex. Reprod. Health 2021, 25, bmjsrh-2021-201281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Caruso, S.; Rapisarda, A.M.C.; Minona, P. Sexual activity and contraceptive use during social distancing and self-isolation in the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care 2020, 25, 445–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Yuksel, B.; Ozgor, F. Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on female sexual behavior. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2020, 150, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Contraception models in comparison with the age of women not planning and planning to have children.
Figure 1. Contraception models in comparison with the age of women not planning and planning to have children.
Ijerph 19 12748 g001
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the studied population (N = 642).
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the studied population (N = 642).
VariableN%
Age
18–25 years old (y.o.)15524.1
26–34 y.o.18228.3
35–41 y.o.15123.5
42–49 y.o.15424.0
Education level
under vocational6610.3
vocational 23236.1
secondary 21233.0
higher13220.6
Place of residence
country30046.7
city34253.3
Attitude towards faith
believers who practice regularly10616.5
believers who practice irregularly18629.0
non-practicing believers22835.5
unbelievers7812.1
not specified or refusal to answer446.9
Economic status
very bad396.1
relative or average37157.8
good or very good21533.5
refusal to answer172.6
Occupation status
professional works33351.8
learns457.0
runs the house15724.5
a pension or not working8913.9
refusal to answer182.8
Relationship status
formal32450.5
informal26641.4
out of the relationship446.9
refusal to answer81.2
The number of sexual partners in a lifetime
one13823.3
2–323840.1
4 or more21736.6
no data49
Children
any47373.7
no16926.3
Procreation plans
yes, soon (up to 2 years)12219.0
yes, I want to have kids, but later10816.8
no plans to have children30547.5
she did not decide8813.7
refusal to answer193.0
Access to contraception within the last 2–3 months
had difficulties6410.0
had not any difficulties28544.4
did not need28444.2
refusal to answer91.4
Table 2. The usage of contraceptive methods.
Table 2. The usage of contraceptive methods.
Contraceptive MethodsN *% from the Whole Sample
(N = 640)
% among Users
(N = 448)
Ineffective
(low effectiveness)
intermittent intercourse13621.330.4
calendar method or other natural family planning method568.812.5
globule/gel/
spermicidal foam
81.31.8
Effective
(high effectiveness)
condom28344.263.2
contraceptive pills14122.031.5
intrauterine device274.26.0
emergency contraception71.11.6
patches60.91.3
vaginal ring50.81.1
hormonal injections40.60.9
other10.20.2
* Two cases of respondents who selected all 10 methods were eliminated—they were considered as unreliable.
Table 3. Usage of contraceptive methods according to selected characteristics of the respondents (N = 642).
Table 3. Usage of contraceptive methods according to selected characteristics of the respondents (N = 642).
Methods Usage *p Value
Effective Model of ContraceptionIneffective Model of ContraceptionLack of Contraception or No Data
In general42.2%26.8%31.0%
Age
18–25 years old (y.o.)48.4%31.0%20.6%Chi.sq = 14.54
26–34 y.o.40.7%26.3%33.0%d.f. = 6
35–41 y.o.40.4%29.1%30.5%p = 0.024
42–49 y.o.39.6%20.8%39.6%
Education level
under vocational36.4%27.2%36.4%Chi.sq = 49.08
vocational 33.6%20.7%45.7%d.f. = 6
secondary 44.8%34.4%20.8%p < 0.001
higher56.1%25.0%18.9%
Place of residence Chi.sq = 9.49
country38.7%24.3%37.0%d.f. = 1
city45.3%29.0%25.7%p = 0.008
Attitude towards faith
believers who practice regularly45.3%25.5%29.2%
believers who practice irregularly36.6%33.3%30.1%Chi.sq = 19.18
non-practicing believers39.0%23.7%37.3%d.f. = 8
unbelievers59.0%23.1%17.9%p = 0.014
not specified or refusal to answer45.5%25.0%29.5%
Economic status
very bad20.5%30.8%48.7%Chi.sq = 16.27
relative or average40.2%26.4%33.4%d.f. = 6
good or very good49.8%26.5%23.7%p = 0.012
refusal to answer41.2%29.4%29.4%
Occupation status
professional works44.7%26.2%29.1%
learns44.4%42.3%13.3%Chi.sq = 17.72
runs the house41.4%26.1%32.5%d.f. = 8
a pension or not working36.0%24.7%39.3%p = 0.023
refusal to answer27.8%16.6%55.6%
Relationship status
formal42.6%25.9%31.5%Chi.sq = 4.41
informal39.5%28.9%31.6%d.f. = 6
out of the relationship52.3%22.7%25.0%p = 0.622
refusal to answer62.5%12.5%25.0%
The number of sexual partners in a lifetime
one47.8%31.2%21.0%Chi.sq = 17.47
2–341.2%25.2%33.6%d.f. = 6
4 or more41.5%28.5%30.0%p = 0.008
no data34.7%14.3%51.0%
Chlidren Chi.sq = 3.87
any39.1%32.5%28.4%d.f. = 2
no43.3%24.8%31.9%p = 0.144
Procreation plans
yes, soon (up to 2 years)26.2%29.5%44.3%
yes i want to have kids but later45.4%36.1%18.5%Chi.sq = 32.55
no plans to have children48.2%22.0%29.8%d.f. = 8
she did not decide40.9%30.7%28.4%p < 0.001
refusal to answer36.8%15.8%47.4%
Access to contraception within the last 2–3 months
had difficulties60.9%31.3%7.8%Chi.sq = 229.21
had not any difficulties66.3%25.6%8.1%d.f. = 6
did not need14.4%27.5%58.1%p < 0.001
refusal to answer22.2%11.1%66.7%
* Ineffective model involves usage of only ineffective methods and combining ineffective methods with effective ones; two cases of respondents who selected all ten methods were eliminated—they were considered as unreliable.
Table 4. Estimation results of polynomial logistic regression models.
Table 4. Estimation results of polynomial logistic regression models.
Model: Only Effective Model of ContraceptionModel: Only Ineffective Model of Contraception
pAOR95% CI(AOR)pAOR95% CI(AOR)
Lower LimitUpper LimitLower LimitUpper Limit
Age
18–25 years old (y.o.)0.00012.974.4238.070.0034.621.6812.76
26–34 y.o.0.0332.481.085.710.0962.000.884.54
35–41 y.o.0.0801.970.924.210.0342.221.064.62
42–49 y.o. (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Education level
under vocational0.0370.330.120.940.2570.570.211.51
vocational 0.0020.290.130.640.0280.420.200.91
secondary 0.4210.720.321.620.8441.080.502.36
higher (fer.) 1.00 1.00
Place of residence
country0.3550.770.441.340.0920.630.371.08
city (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Economic status
very bad0.0010.110.030.420.0980.410.141.18
relative or average0.0520.560.311.010.2920.740.421.30
good or very good (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Children
no0.0220.410.190.880.5430.800.401.63
any (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Attitude towards faith
believers who practice regularly0.0870.400.141.140.4550.670.241.89
believers who practice irregularly0.0600.400.151.040.9140.950.372.42
non-practicing believers0.0170.320.130.820.1400.500.201.25
unbelievers (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Procreation plans
yes, soon (up to 2 years)0.0000.110.050.270.0370.440.200.95
yes, I want to have kids but later0.1340.460.171.270.7821.140.442.99
did not decide 0.3990.700.301.610.4011.400.643.06
no plans to have children (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Access to contraception
did not need0.0000.030.020.060.0000.140.080.26
had difficulties0.7191.250.374.250.4421.630.475.67
had not any difficulties (ref.) 1.00 1.00
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Izdebski, Z.; Wąż, K.; Warzecha, D.; Mazur, J.; Wielgoś, M. Factors Associated with Uptake of Effective and Ineffective Contraceptives among Polish Women during the First Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912748

AMA Style

Izdebski Z, Wąż K, Warzecha D, Mazur J, Wielgoś M. Factors Associated with Uptake of Effective and Ineffective Contraceptives among Polish Women during the First Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):12748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912748

Chicago/Turabian Style

Izdebski, Zbigniew, Krzysztof Wąż, Damian Warzecha, Joanna Mazur, and Mirosław Wielgoś. 2022. "Factors Associated with Uptake of Effective and Ineffective Contraceptives among Polish Women during the First Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 12748. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912748

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop