The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Contraceptive Use among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001
Abstract
CONTEXT: Knowing the extent to which contraceptive nonuse, incorrect or inconsistent use, and method failure account for unintended pregnancies ending in abortion, as well as reasons for nonuse and imperfect use, can help policymakers and family planning providers support effective contraceptive use. METHODS: Contraceptive use patterns among a nationally representative sample of 10,683 women receiving abortion services in 2000-2001 were examined, as well as reasons for nonuse, problems with the most frequently used methods and the impact emergency contraceptive pills have had on abortion rates. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers respectively). The male condom was the most commonly reported method among all women (28%), followed by the pill (14%). Inconsistent method use was the main cause of pregnancy for 49% of condom users and 76% of pill users; 42% of condom users cited condom breakage or slippage as a reason for pregnancy. Substantial proportions of pill and condom users indicated perfect method use (13-14%). As many as 51,000 abortions were averted by use of emergency contraceptive pills in 2000. CONCLUSIONS: Women and men need accurate information about fertility cycles and about the risk of pregnancy when a contraceptive is not used or is used imperfectly. Increased use of emergency contraceptive pills could further reduce levels of unintended pregnancy and abortion.
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
Cited by
Disparities 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-citationContraceptive Use and Pregnancy Risk Among U.S. High School Students, 1991-2003
Santelli, J. S., Morrow, B., Anderson, J. E., & Lindberg, L. D. (2006) · Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health · doi:10.1363/3810606 · Cited by 90
Obstetrician–gynecologist physicians' beliefs about emergency contraception: a national survey
Lawrence, R. E., Rasinski, K. A., Yoon, J. D., & Curlin, F. A. (2010) · Contraception · doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2010.04.151 · Cited by 45
Reminders make people adhere better to a self-help sleep intervention
Horsch, C., Spruit, S., Lancee, J., van Eijk, R., Beun, R. J., Neerincx, M., & Brinkman, W.-P. (2017) · Health and Technology · doi:10.1007/s12553-016-0167-x · Cited by 44
Analysis of content about sexuality and human reproduction in school textbooks in Spain
de Irala, J., Urdiain, I. G., & López del Burgo, C. (2008) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2008.01.005 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Jones, R. K., Darroch, J. E., & Henshaw, S. K.
- Venue
- Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 294
- ISSN
- 1538-6341 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2048910518
- Cited by
- 333
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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 Use among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/3097748
- The paper
- Jones, R. K., Darroch, J. E., & Henshaw, S. K. (2002). Contraceptive Use among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097748
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.