Kathryn M Curtis’s research while affiliated with Office of Disease Prevention, National Institutes of Health and other places

The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25–27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016:65[No. RR-3]:1–103). Notable updates include 1) the addition of recommendations for persons with chronic kidney disease; 2) revisions to the recommendations for persons with certain characteristics or medical conditions (i.e., breastfeeding, postpartum, postabortion, obesity, surgery, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism with or without anticoagulant therapy, thrombophilia, superficial venous thrombosis, valvular heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, high risk for HIV infection, cirrhosis, liver tumor, sickle cell disease, solid organ transplantation, and drug interactions with antiretrovirals used for prevention or treatment of HIV infection); and 3) inclusion of new contraceptive methods, including new doses or formulations of combined oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, vaginal rings, progestin-only pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and vaginal pH modulator. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

The 2024 U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use (U.S. SPR) addresses a selected group of common, yet sometimes complex, issues regarding initiation and use of specific contraceptive methods. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25–27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. SPR (CDC. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016;65[No. RR-4]:1–66). Notable updates include 1) updated recommendations for provision of medications for intrauterine device placement, 2) updated recommendations for bleeding irregularities during implant use, 3) new recommendations for testosterone use and risk for pregnancy, and 4) new recommendations for self-administration of injectable contraception. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.

The Zika Contraception Access Network (Z‐CAN) provided access to high‐quality client‐centered contraceptive services across Puerto Rico during the 2016–2017 Zika virus outbreak. We sent online surveys during May 2017–August 2020 to a subset of Z‐CAN patients at 6, 24, and 36 months after program enrollment (response rates: 55–60 percent). We described contraceptive method continuation, method satisfaction, and method switching, and we identified characteristics associated with discontinuation using multivariable logistic regression. Across all contraceptive methods, continuation was 82.5 percent, 64.2 percent, and 49.9 percent at 6, 24, and 36 months, respectively. Among continuing users, method satisfaction was approximately ≥90 percent. Characteristics associated with decreased likelihood of discontinuation included: using an intrauterine device or implant compared with a nonlong‐acting reversible contraceptive method (shot, pills, ring, patch, or condoms alone); wanting to prevent pregnancy at follow‐up; and receiving as their baseline method the same method primarily used before Z‐CAN. Other associated characteristics included: receiving the method they were most interested in postcounseling (6 and 24 months) and being very satisfied with Z‐CAN services at the initial visit (6 months). Among those wanting to prevent pregnancy at follow‐up, about half reported switching to another method. Ongoing access to contraceptive services is essential for promoting reproductive autonomy, including supporting patients with continued use, method switching, or discontinuation.

Purpose: We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in Fall 2021 on sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services among physicians whose practice provided these services to adolescents just before the pandemic. Methods: Data were from the DocStyles online panel survey administered September-November 2021 to US physicians who reported their practice provided SRH services to adolescent patients before the pandemic (n = 948). We calculated prevalence of service delivery challenges (e.g., limited long-acting reversible contraception services) and use of strategies to support access (e.g., telehealth) in the month prior to survey completion, compared these estimates with prevalence "at any point during the COVID-19 pandemic", and examined differences by physician specialty and adolescent patient volume. Results: Fewer physicians reported their practice experienced service delivery challenges in the month prior to survey completion than at any point during the pandemic. About 10% indicated limited long-acting reversible contraception and sexually transmitted infection testing services in the prior month overall; prevalence varied by physician specialty (e.g., 26% and 17%, respectively by service, among internists). Overall, about 25% of physicians reported reductions in walk-in hours, weekend/evening hours, and adolescents seeking care in the prior month. While most practices that initiated strategies supporting access to services during the pandemic used such strategies in the prior month, some practices (22%-37% depending on the strategy) did not. Discussion: Findings suggest some physicians who serve adolescents continued to experience challenges providing SRH services in the Fall 2021, and some discontinued strategies to support access that had been initiated during the pandemic.

Objective(s): To understand how contraception method use differed between women prescribed and not prescribed medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) among commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women. Study design: IBM Watson Health MarketScan® Commercial Claims and Encounters database and the Multi-State Medicaid database were used to calculate the 1) crude prevalence and 2) adjusted odds ratios (adjusted for demographic characteristics) of using long-acting reversible or short-acting hormonal contraception methods or female sterilization compared with none of these methods (no method) in 2018 by MOUD status among women with OUD, aged 20 to 49 years, with continuous health insurance coverage through commercial insurance or Medicaid for ≥ six years. Claims data was used to define contraception use. Fisher exact test or χ2 test with a p-value ≤ 0.0001, based on the Holm-Bonferroni method, and 95% confidence intervals were used to determine statistically significant differences for prevalence estimates and adjusted odds ratios, respectively. Results: Only 41% of commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured women with OUD were prescribed MOUD. Medicaid-insured women with OUD prescribed MOUD had a significantly lower crude prevalence of using no method (71.1% vs 79.0%) and higher odds of using female sterilization (aOR, 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06 - 1.67 vs no method) than those not prescribed MOUD. Among commercially-insured women there were no differences in contraceptive use by MOUD status and 66% used no method. Conclusions: Among women with ≥ six years of continuous insurance coverage, contraceptive use differed by MOUD status and insurance. Prescribing MOUD for women with OUD can be improved to ensure quality care. Implications: Only two in five women with OUD had evidence of being prescribed MOUD, and majority did not use prescription contraception or female sterilization. Our findings support opportunities to improve prescribing for MOUD and integrate contraception and MOUD services to improve clinical care among women with OUD.

Background Provider training in intrauterine device (IUD) procedures is a key strategy for improving evidence-based IUD care. We examined the influence of IUD training on IUD attitudes and practices among U.S. family planning providers. Methods In 2019, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of U.S. family planning providers. We performed logistic regression to examine associations between training in routine IUD placement and specific IUD safety attitudes, confidence performing IUD procedures, and specific IUD practices. Results Among 1,063 physicians and advanced practice clinicians, 85.1% reported training in routine IUD placement. Overall, IUD training was associated with accurately stating IUDs are safe for queried groups, including patients immediately postpartum (prevalence ratio [PR] 4.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29–13.85). Trained providers reported higher confidence in routine IUD placement for parous (PR 7.71; 95% CI 1.31–45.3) and nulliparous (PR 7.12; 95% CI 1.17–43.5) women and in IUD removal (PR 2.06; 95% CI 1.12–3.81). Among providers with IUDs available onsite, IUD training was associated with frequent same-day IUD provision for adults (PR 7.32; 95% CI 2.16–24.79) and adolescents (PR 7.63; 95% CI 2.22–26.24). Trained providers were also less likely to routinely use misoprostol before IUD placement for nulliparous (PR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11–0.33) and parous women (PR 0.07; 95% CI 0.03–0.16). Conclusion Training in routine IUD placement was associated with evidence-based IUD safety attitudes, confidence in performing IUD procedures, and clinical practices aligned with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contraception guidance. Expanding IUD training might increase evidence-based care and patient access to the full range of contraception, including IUDs.