Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth

Open access
Sundaram, Aparna, Vaughan, Barbara, Kost, Kathryn, Bankole, Akinrinola, Finer, Lawrence, Singh, Susheela, Trussell, James·2017·Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health

Abstract

CONTEXT: Contraceptive failure rates measure a woman's probability of becoming pregnant while using a contraceptive. Information about these rates enables couples to make informed contraceptive choices. Failure rates were last estimated for 2002, and social and economic changes that have occurred since then necessitate a reestimation. METHODS: To estimate failure rates for the most commonly used reversible methods in the United States, data from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth were used; some 15,728 contraceptive use intervals, contributed by 6,683 women, were analyzed. Data from the Guttmacher Institute's 2008 Abortion Patient Survey were used to adjust for abortion underreporting. Kaplan‐Meier methods were used to estimate the associated single‐decrement probability of failure by duration of use. Failure rates were compared with those from 1995 and 2002. RESULTS: Long‐acting reversible contraceptives (the IUD and the implant) had the lowest failure rates of all methods (1%), while condoms and withdrawal carried the highest probabilities of failure (13% and 20%, respectively). However, the failure rate for the condom had declined significantly since 1995 (from 18%), as had the failure rate for all hormonal methods combined (from 8% to 6%). The failure rate for all reversible methods combined declined from 12% in 2002 to 10% in 2006–2010. CONCLUSIONS: These broad‐based declines in failure rates reverse a long‐term pattern of minimal change. Future research should explore what lies behind these trends, as well as possibilities for further improvements.

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/psrh.12017

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Sundaram, A., Vaughan, B., Kost, K., Bankole, A., Finer, L., Singh, S., & Trussell, J.
Venue
Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
Published
2017-02-28
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
7-16
ISSN
  • 1538-6341 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-2393
OpenAlex
W2592395378
Cited by
287
References
31
FWCI
28.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1363/psrh.12017
The paper
Sundaram, A., Vaughan, B., Kost, K., Bankole, A., Finer, L., Singh, S., & Trussell, J. (2017). Contraceptive Failure in the United States: Estimates from the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. https://doi.org/10.1363/psrh.12017

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.