Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 564

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Continuation and Satisfaction of Reversible Contraception

Open access
Peipert, Jeffrey F., Zhao, Qiuhong, Allsworth, Jenifer E., Petrosky, Emiko, Madden, Tessa, Eisenberg, David, Secura, Gina·2011·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate 12-month satisfaction and continuation rates of intrauterine device (IUD) and implant users enrolled in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project and compare these measures with women using the oral contraceptive pills (OCPs). METHODS: We analyzed 12-month data from the first 5,087 participants enrolled in a prospective cohort study of women in the St. Louis region offered contraception at no cost for 3 years. The primary purpose of CHOICE is to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraception (IUDs and implants) and to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region. This analysis includes those participants who received their baseline contraceptive method within 3 months of enrollment and who reached the 12-month follow-up telephone survey time point (n=4,167). RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of our participants chose a long-acting reversible contraception method (45% levonorgestrel intrauterine system, 10% copper IUD, and 13% subdermal implant), 23% chose combined hormonal methods (11% OCPs, 10% vaginal ring, and 2% transdermal patch), and 8% chose depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Long-acting reversible contraception users had higher 12-month continuation rates (86%) than OCP users (55%). The two IUDs had the highest 12-month continuation rates: levonorgestrel intrauterine system (88%) and copper IUD (84%). Women using the implant also had very high rates of continuation at 1 year (83%). Satisfaction mirrored continuation: more than 80% of users were satisfied with the IUD compared with 54% satisfied with OCPs. CONCLUSION: IUDs and the subdermal implant have the highest rates of satisfaction and 12-month continuation. Given that long-acting reversible contraception methods have the highest contraceptive efficacy, these methods should be the first-line contraceptive methods offered to patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0b013e31821188ad

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 564

Metadata

Authors
Peipert, J. F., Zhao, Q., Allsworth, J. E., Petrosky, E., Madden, T., Eisenberg, D., & Secura, G.
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2011-05
Volume
117
Issue
5
Pages
1105-1113
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158615432
Cited by
564
References
0
FWCI
30.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Continuation and Satisfaction of Reversible Contraception. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/aog.0b013e31821188ad
The paper
Peipert, J. F., Zhao, Q., Allsworth, J. E., Petrosky, E., Madden, T., Eisenberg, D., & Secura, G. (2011). Continuation and Satisfaction of Reversible Contraception. Obstetrics & Gynecology. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e31821188ad

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.