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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Peto, R., Pike, M. C., Armitage, P., Breslow, N. E., Cox, D. R., Howard, S. V., Mantel, N., McPherson, K., Peto, J., & Smith, P. G. (1977) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1038/bjc.1977.1 · Cited by 8,285
Declines in Unintended Pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011
Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2016) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa1506575 · Cited by 1,989
Self-citationContraceptive failure in the United States
Trussell, J. (2011) · Contraception · doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2011.01.021 · Cited by 1,588
Self-citationDisparities in Rates of Unintended Pregnancy In the United States, 1994 and 2001
Finer, L. B., & Henshaw, S. K. (2006) · Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health · doi:10.1363/3809006 · Cited by 1,557
Self-citationShifts in Intended and Unintended Pregnancies in the United States, 2001–2008
Finer, L. B., & Zolna, M. R. (2014) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301416 · Cited by 770
Self-citationContraceptive 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
Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001.
Finer, L. B., & Henshaw, S. K. (2006) · PubMed · doi:10.1363/psrh.38.090.06 · Cited by 585
Self-citationJones, J., Mosher, W. D., & Daniels, K. M. (2012) · PubMed · Cited by 478
Estimates of contraceptive failure from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth
Kost, K., Singh, S., Vaughan, B., Trussell, J., & Bankole, A. (2008) · Contraception · doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2007.09.013 · Cited by 444
Self-citationUnderreporting of abortion in surveys of U.S. women: 1976 to 1988
Jones, E. F., & Forrest, J. D. (1992) · Demography · doi:10.2307/2061366 · Cited by 340
Cited by
Condom effectiveness in reducing heterosexual HIV transmission.
Weller, S. C., & Davis-Beaty, K. (2002) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003255 · Cited by 846
Population Group Abortion Rates and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion: United States, 2008–2014
Jones, R. K., & Jerman, J. (2022) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2017.304042 · Cited by 305
Understanding the Decline in Adolescent Fertility in the United States, 2007–2012
Lindberg, L., Santelli, J., & Desai, S. (2016) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.06.024 · Cited by 185
Effectiveness of Fertility Awareness–Based Methods for Pregnancy Prevention: A Systematic Review
Peragallo Urrutia, R., Polis, C. B., Jensen, E. T., Greene, M. E., Kennedy, E., & Stanford, J. B. (2018) · Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000002784 · Cited by 101
Barriers to male condom use in Rohingya refugee camps in Bangladesh: A qualitative study
Islam, M. M., Rahman, M. M., & Khan, M. N. (2022) · The Lancet Regional Health - Southeast Asia · doi:10.1016/j.lansea.2022.04.004 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Sundaram, A., Vaughan, B., Kost, K., Bankole, A., Finer, L., Singh, S., & Trussell, J.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Publisher
- Guttmacher Institute
- 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.