Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 379

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 access
Gomez, Anu Manchikanti, Fuentes, Liza, Allina, Amy·2014·Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1363/46e1614

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

See all 379

Metadata

Authors
Gomez, A. M., Fuentes, L., & Allina, A.
Venue
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
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.