The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Women or LARC First? Reproductive Autonomy And the Promotion of Long‐Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods
Open accessAbstract
In recent years, enthusiasm about long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods has skyrocketed among U.S. reproductive health care providers because of these methods’ potential to budge the rate of unintended pregnancy, which “stubbornly” persists at the same level despite efforts over many years to reduce it.1 For too long, LARC methods—IUDs and implants—have not been an option that women could easily choose, because of a range of barriers: lack of knowledge,2 providers’ low familiarity and lack of training,3–5 cost6,7 and unavailability in clinics.8 While we strongly believe that these barriers should be reduced so that LARC methods are an integral part of a comprehensive method mix, we also are concerned that unchecked enthusiasm for them can lead to the adoption of programs that, paradoxically, undermine women’s reproductive autonomy. Our concern is that when efforts move beyond ensuring access for all women to promoting use among “high-risk” populations through programs and contraceptive counseling aimed at increasing uptake of LARC methods, the effect is that the most vulnerable women may have their options restricted. To avoid this pitfall, it is vital that programs designed to promote LARC methods put the priorities, needs and preferences of individual women—not the promotion of specific technologies—first. While the possibility that LARC promotion efforts can undermine reproductive autonomy may seem remote in the face of the myriad barriers women face in using these methods, we believe that now is a pivotal time to engage in a critical discussion of this topic, given that use of LARC methods is on the rise,9 new clinical models are showing success in reducing and eliminating barriers to using them10,11 and many women have newfound access to contraceptives thanks to provisions of the Affordable Care Act.12 Such a discussion may illuminate the ways in which narrowing the scope of possibilities for family planning program innovation to promoting a particular class of technologies allows the widespread social inequalities that underlie unintended pregnancy to become invisible. It also may show how prioritizing method effectiveness above other contraceptive features may deny some women reproductive control.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
(1997) · Penn Carey Law Legal Scholarship Repository (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 2,736
Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006
Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2011) · Contraception · doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.07.013 · Cited by 1,291
Contraceptive Technology 1982-1983
Hatcher, R. A., Stewart, G. K., Stewart, F. H., Guest, F., Josephs, N., & Dale, J. (1982) · Studies in Family Planning · doi:10.2307/1965455 · Cited by 711
The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception
Secura, G. M., Allsworth, J. E., Madden, T., Mullersman, J. L., & Peipert, J. F. (2010) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.017 · Cited by 665
Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contraception
Peipert, J. F., Madden, T., Allsworth, J. E., & Secura, G. M. (2012) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0b013e318273eb56 · Cited by 469
Damned if you do: culture, identity, privilege, and teenage childbearing in the United States
Geronimus, A. T. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00456-2 · Cited by 371
Stern, A. M. (2005) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.041608 · Cited by 345
Why is the teen birth rate in the United States so high and why does it matter?
Kearney, M. S., & Levine, P. B. (2012) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.26.2.141 · Cited by 319
Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007–2009
Finer, L. B., Jerman, J., & Kavanaugh, M. L. (2012) · Fertility and Sterility · doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.06.027 · Cited by 308
From black power to hip hop: racism, nationalism, and feminism
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-3570 · Cited by 250
Cited by
Higgins, J. A., Kramer, R. D., & Ryder, K. M. (2016) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2016.303393 · Cited by 316
Changes in Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods Among U.S. Women, 2009–2012
Kavanaugh, M. L., Jerman, J., & Finer, L. B. (2015) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000001094 · Cited by 284
“We’re a Little Biased”: Medicine and the Management of Bias through the Case of Contraception
Manzer, J. L., & Bell, A. V. (2021) · Journal of Health and Social Behavior · doi:10.1177/00221465211003232 · Cited by 58
Steenland, M. W., Pace, L. E., & Cohen, J. L. (2022) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.5688 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Gomez, A. M., Fuentes, L., & Allina, A.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Publisher
- Guttmacher Institute
- Published
- 2014-05-23
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 171-175
- ISSN
- 1538-6341 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-2393
- OpenAlex
- W1970674882
- Cited by
- 379
- References
- 33
- FWCI
- 18.38
- 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: Women or LARC First? Reproductive Autonomy And the Promotion of Long‐Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1363/46e1614
- The paper
- Gomez, A. M., Fuentes, L., & Allina, A. (2014). Women or LARC First? Reproductive Autonomy And the Promotion of Long‐Acting Reversible Contraceptive Methods. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. https://doi.org/10.1363/46e1614
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.