Skip to main content
Download PDF

Relationship between experiencing a challenge or delay accessing contraception and contraceptive self-efficacy: Data from a 2022 nationally representative online survey

Reproductive Health volume 22, Article number: 54 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Previous research has found self-efficacy is associated with reproductive health behaviors and outcomes. However, few studies have quantitatively examined the relationship between barriers accessing contraception and self-efficacy. In addition, existing population-level metrics of contraceptive access tend to focus on method availability, uptake, and use, rather than people’s self-defined needs and preferences. This study uses person-centered metrics to assess the relationship between experiencing a recent challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception and two measures of contraceptive self-efficacy.

Methods

In 2022, we fielded a nationally representative survey in English and Spanish using NORC’s AmeriSpeak panel, surveying non-sterile 15- to 44-year-olds assigned female sex at birth in the U.S. We describe common challenges and delays obtaining contraception and present the distribution of experiencing a challenge or delay obtaining contraception by key sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics. We also conduct logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between experiencing a challenge/delay and two measures of contraceptive self-efficacy: confidence in obtaining a desired method when wanted and perceived ease of switching methods when wanted.

Results

Among the analytic sample of respondents who had ever used or tried to obtain a contraceptive product, device, or procedure (unweighted n = 2,771), about 14% experienced a challenge/delay obtaining desired contraception in the past year. The most common reasons for challenges or delays were related to logistics (transportation, childcare, scheduling; 38.2%) and cost/insurance coverage (35.8%). Among those who experienced a challenge/delay obtaining desired contraception (unweighted n = 301), higher proportions were younger, identified as non-heterosexual, had lower educational attainment, and could afford smaller emergency expenses compared to the subgroup that did not experience a challenge/delay. Experiencing a challenge/delay was associated with decreased odds of feeling very or somewhat confident in obtaining a desired method (aOR 0.14; 95% CI 0.07, 0.25) and decreased odds of feeling it would be very or somewhat easy to switch contraceptive methods (aOR 0.48; 95% CI 0.33, 0.71).

Conclusions

Eliminating barriers to contraceptive care is crucial to achieving person-centered access. Our research suggests that experiencing a challenge/delay has implications not only for recent contraceptive access but also influences self-efficacy, potentially inhibiting future ability to obtain and use desired contraception.

Peer Review reports

Background

Person-centered contraceptive access is necessary to achieve sexual and reproductive health equity—defined as all persons, across the range of age, gender, race, and other intersecting identities, having what they need to access and attain their highest level of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) [1–4]. However, current approaches to measuring contraceptive access focus on use and services provided and do not utilize a person-centered framework, in which an individual’s experiences, values, and preferences are prioritized and guide decision-making [3, 5–9]. Understanding individuals' perspectives on the challenges to accessing contraception is an important step in alleviating those challenges and promoting person-centered care. Despite advances in method availability and insurance coverage, individuals still report difficulty obtaining contraception. A 2023 study in three states found between 10 and 19% of contraceptive users reported a delay or trouble obtaining contraception in the past 12 months [10]. Previous research suggests that financial barriers are most common [10–16]. Other frequent barriers include those related to logistics (e.g., transportation and scheduling), lack of availability at a clinic or facility, provider bias, insufficient information, and privacy concerns [10, 16–19]. Contraceptive access barriers disproportionately affect groups already experiencing systemic inequities based on age, race, sexual orientation, and income [11, 13, 18, 20–24].

Accessing contraception is a multi-step process. Often, this process includes frequent engagement with the healthcare system, which can exacerbate and compound barriers. Actions necessary to access contraception typically include identifying one’s contraceptive needs (ideally using relevant and scientifically accurate information), selecting preferred method(s), seeking care from a healthcare provider (either in-person or via telehealth), obtaining and using desired method(s), and switching or discontinuing methods as desired. Many contraceptive methods still require regular engagement with healthcare professionals for continued use. For example, the oral contraceptive pill (one of the most commonly used methods in the U.S. [25, 26]) is generally taken daily, so an adequate supply is necessary for consistent and effective use. However, studies estimate about one-third of short-acting hormonal contraception users (e.g., pill, patch, ring or shot) have missed using their birth control because they were unable to obtain their next supply in time [16, 27]. A 2022 survey found 32% of contraceptive pill users received 1 or 2 (monthly) packs at a time, and only 6% received 6 or more packs at a time [16]. This occurs despite clinical guidelines that recommend prescribing a full year of contraception [28, 29] and many state policies that require public and/or commercial insurers to cover an extended supply (usually 12 months) of contraception [28].

Switching contraceptive methods is a common and inherent part of the SRH journey [30–32]. Recent studies have estimated about a quarter of contraceptive users would like to be using a different form of birth control [16, 24], and a 2023 study of contraceptive users who were patients at community health centers found over 20% switched methods over the 4-year observation period [32]. However, evidence suggests that individuals face several obstacles—in some cases, including provider bias—when attempting to switch or discontinue methods, especially when they desire to discontinue long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) [32–35].

Self-efficacy, defined as confidence in executing actions or behaviors for desired outcomes, is needed to overcome barriers inherent to the U.S. healthcare system and maintain consistent contraceptive access [36, 37]. Theoretical frameworks such as Levesque et al.’s model for patient-centered healthcare access [3] and Bandura’s social cognitive theory [38, 39] highlight that self-efficacy plays a key role in enabling individuals to take actions necessary to access healthcare. Previous research has found self-efficacy is associated with general health [40–43] and specific SRH-related [36, 37, 44–48] behaviors and outcomes. Additionally, social and structural environments strongly influence self-efficacy; researchers have found that individuals who identify as Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), have low-incomes, and have lower educational attainment generally score lower on self-efficacy measures [36, 49–51]. Evidence also suggests that higher self-efficacy is associated with increased use of contraception [36, 37, 45, 52]. However, few studies have quantitatively examined the association between barriers accessing contraception and self-efficacy. In addition, existing population-level metrics of contraceptive access tend to focus on method availability, uptake, and use, rather than people’s self-defined needs and preferences [53, 54].

This study assesses the relationship between experiencing a recent challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception and contraceptive self-efficacy. We also examine sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics associated with experiencing a challenge or delay. This study aims to contribute data on the types and frequency of barriers to timely access to desired contraception and novel insights regarding the impact on self-efficacy. These insights can inform strategies to overcome contraceptive barriers, which is especially important in the current U.S. policy environment, given the loss of a constitutional right to abortion care and increasing threats to SRH equity [55, 56].

Methods

This study is part of the Person-Centered Contraceptive Access Metrics project [57], a stakeholder-engaged project that aimed to develop person-centered measures of contraceptive access to inform policy, research, and funding directions, while also disrupting norms in knowledge production that prioritize the perspective of academic researchers. Additional details about the project have been previously published [24, 27, 57]. We used a multi-step process to develop, test, and deploy this study's survey instrument. First, we developed survey questions to quantify key aspects of person-centered contraceptive access using insights from a literature review and interviews with stakeholders from diverse sectors (e.g., reproductive justice, advocacy, clinical care, public health). We then sought expert review on the survey draft and conducted 33 cognitive interviews in English and Spanish to understand how survey respondents would make sense of the questions and whether they captured the intended constructs. Next, we fielded these refined questions in a nationally representative survey in partnership with NORC at the University of Chicago. Finally, we convened a Working Group to develop and select priority metrics. One of the four key metrics prioritized by the Working Group was experiencing a challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception in the past year. The Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of California, Berkeley and the Institutional Review Board at NORC at the University of Chicago approved the study protocol.

Data source

We fielded a nationally representative online survey between January and March 2022 using NORC’s AmeriSpeak Panel. AmeriSpeak is a multistage probability sample constructed to represent the U.S. household population—including over 54,000 members and covering an estimated 97% of U.S. households [58]. Before survey distribution, we completed a power analysis to determine the target sample size with sufficient statistical power so that descriptive analyses could detect statistically significant differences between subgroups. Panelists were eligible for the survey if they were: ages 15–44, assigned female sex at birth, not known to be sterile, and able to complete the self-administered survey in English or Spanish. All panelists aged 18 and older who met the age and sex criteria were invited to provide informed consent and complete an initial screening. The parents of panelists aged 15–17 first provided informed consent before their children provided their own informed assent and completed screening. Eligible participants continued to the full survey, which took approximately 25 min to complete. Approximately 97% of panelists who completed the initial screening and met eligibility criteria also completed the full survey. Respondents received the equivalent of $8 in “AmeriSpeak points” upon survey completion.

Sample

The analytic sample includes respondents who had ever used or tried to obtain a contraceptive method that is a product, device, or procedure (unweighted n = 2,798). We defined contraceptive products, devices, and procedures as the following: oral contraceptive pill, patch, ring, shot, implant, hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs), emergency contraception, vasectomy, condoms, gel (e.g., Phexxi), spermicide, diaphragm, cervical cap, and sponge. Vasectomy refers to a partner’s vasectomy. We excluded respondents who skipped 3 or more key survey questions used in this analysis. Statistical tests indicated these responses were missing completely at random. NORC constructed survey weights to account for differences between the U.S. population and the survey sample based on age, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, number of children in household, and age by race/ethnicity. The final analytic sample (unweighted n = 2,771), when weighted, represents approximately 40.8 million 15- to 44-year-olds who met inclusion criteria.

Measures

Our first measure of interest was experiencing a challenge or delay obtaining a desired contraceptive method in the past year. We categorized respondents as having experienced a challenge/delay if they answered yes to the following question: “In the past 12 months, have you encountered any challenges or delays in getting the birth control method you wanted?” (response options: yes, no). Respondents who answered “yes” were then shown a list of types of challenges (based on previous literature [10, 17, 18]) and asked to select all that apply.

Second, we operationalized contraceptive self-efficacy using two items: confidence in obtaining a desired method when wanted and perceived ease of switching methods when wanted. To ascertain confidence, we asked, “In general, how confident are you that you can get the birth control method that you want, when you want it?” (response options: very confident, somewhat confident, not confident). We created a dichotomous variable indicating if the respondent felt very or somewhat confident vs. not confident. To ascertain perceived ease in switching methods, we asked current contraceptive users, “Overall, how difficult or easy do you think it will be to switch to a different birth control method when you want to?” (response options: very easy, somewhat easy, somewhat difficult, very difficult, I’m not sure). We created a dichotomous variable indicating if the respondent felt it would be very or somewhat easy to switch methods vs. not. Taken together, these measures capture key components of contraceptive self-efficacy as it relates to person-centered access: confidence in defining and obtaining desired method(s) and switching when wanted [3, 36, 37].

Our survey also included several sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics. Sociodemographic measures included age, race/ethnicity, survey language, sexual orientation, highest education completed, insurance type, urbanicity, and employment status. In addition, we measured largest affordable emergency expense using the question: “Based on your current financial situation, what is the largest emergency expense that you could pay right now using cash or money in your checking/savings account?” (response options: I could not pay for any emergency expense, $1 to $49, $50 to $99, $100 to $199, $200 to $299, $300 to $399, over $400). We believe this metric more accurately and directly measured a respondent’s financial situation compared to other variables such as household income due to variations in cost of living and household size.

For reproductive health characteristics, we defined current contraceptive use as any method used in the past month, and respondents could indicate use of multiple methods. We created a mutually exclusive categorical variable for current contraceptive method type; if respondents selected more than one method, the most effective method [59] was used to create this variable. Methods were grouped into the following six categories: (1) no method; (2) coital-based withdrawal or fertility awareness-based contraceptive methods (FABM); (3) coital-based product/device (condoms, spermicide, sponge, diaphragm, cervical cap, Phexxi, or emergency contraception); (4) short-acting reversible contraception (SARC), including the pill, patch, ring, and shot; (5) long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including IUDs and implants; and (6) vasectomy. We also created a “contraceptive user status" variable to capture if respondents were content with their current contraceptive use or non-use. Current users were categorized as one of the following: using their preferred method (content current user); wanting to use a different method, no method, or stop using any of their methods as soon as possible; or uncertain about if they would like to use a different method. Respondents who were not using contraception at the time of the survey were categorized as one of the following: content non-user (does not want to use contraception); prospective user (wants to use a method of contraception); or uncertain about if they would like to use contraception. In addition, respondents who indicated they had ever discussed contraception with a healthcare provider were asked whether they had ever experienced nine types of discrimination due to race, ancestry, or national origin in family planning settings [60]. We created a categorical variable representing the number of discrimination types ever experienced (0, 1–4, 5–9). Last, we used the Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling (PCCC) measure [61], in which respondents rated their most recent contraceptive care provider on four aspects of person-centered care. Following scoring conventions for the measure, we used a binary variable for receipt of PCCC, which denotes “excellent” ratings for all four items.

Statistical analyses

We present descriptive statistics for sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics of the analytic sample, as well as the distribution of experiencing a challenge/delay obtaining contraception by key sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics. Bivariate tests were conducted using the Rao-Scott corrected chi-square test [62, 63]. In addition, we used logistic regression analyses to investigate associations between experiencing a challenge/delay obtaining desired contraception in the past year and measures of contraceptive self-efficacy. Adjusted models control for age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, educational attainment, insurance, employment status, urbanicity, and largest affordable emergency expense. We conducted all analyses using Stata (version 17.0) and applied svy commands to account for weighting and complex survey design. Statistical significance was determined using a threshold of p < 0.05. All reported proportions are weighted.

Results

The sociodemographic and reproductive health characteristics of the analytic sample, those who had ever used or tried to obtain a contraceptive product, device, or procedure and met other inclusion criteria (unweighted n = 2,771), are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. About half the sample was between the ages of 18–29 (48.9%), and slightly over half identified as white (53.8%; Table 1). A majority identified as straight/heterosexual (80.6%), and the highest education level completed was high school or less for about one-third of respondents (33.5%). As shown in Table 2, almost 1 in 6 (13.7%) experienced a challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception in the 12 months prior to survey administration. Nearly all were somewhat or very confident (94.8%) they could obtain contraception when wanted, and over half of current users (61.9%) thought it would be very or somewhat easy to switch contraceptive methods. Regarding contraceptive user status, 48.7% were content current users, meaning they were using a preferred contraceptive method. About half (51.9%) of respondents had previously experienced one or more types of discrimination in a family planning setting, and the majority (64.4%) did not receive PCCC from the most recent healthcare provider seen for contraception.

Table 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of a 2022 national sample of 15- to 44-year-olds who had ever used or tried to obtain contraception (unweighted n = 2,771)
Full size table
Table 2 Reproductive health characteristics of a 2022 national sample of 15- to 44-year-olds who had ever used or tried to obtain contraception (unweighted n = 2,771)
Full size table

Among respondents who indicated they had experienced one or more challenges or delays (unweighted n = 301), the most common types of challenges/delays were related to logistics (38.2%), including transportation, childcare, and/or scheduling, followed by finances (35.8%), including out-of-pocket cost and/or insurance coverage (Table 3). 21% experienced a challenge/delay because the method was not available at the facility due to supply constraints and/or religious affiliation. Almost 1 in 5 (19.2%) experienced a challenge/delay related to the provider or staff (poor treatment or unwillingness to provide a method).

Table 3 Type of challenge or delay experienced among respondents reporting a challenge or delay in the last 12 months (unweighted n = 301)
Full size table

In Table 4, we present bivariate analyses showing the distribution of experiencing a challenge/delay obtaining desired contraception by key sociodemographic characteristics. There were differences in the distributions by age, sexual orientation, highest education completed, and largest affordable emergency expense. The youngest groups in our sample (15–17 and 18–24 year-olds) comprised nearly half (47.0%) of those who experienced a challenge/delay compared to 29.8% of those who did not (p < 0.001). Regarding sexual orientation, those who did not identify as heterosexual comprised a higher portion (28.9%) of those who experienced a challenge/delay compared to the subgroup that did not experience a challenge/delay (17.9%; p = 0.004). Among those who experienced a challenge/delay, 25.9% had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 35.3% of those who did not experience a challenge/delay (p = 0.049). Last, 34.9% of those who experienced a challenge/delay could pay for an emergency expense over $400, compared 47.6% of those who did not experience a challenge/delay (p = 0.022).

Table 4 Bivariate analyses of sociodemographic characteristics and experiencing a challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception among a 2022 national sample of 15- to 44-year-olds who had ever used or tried to obtain contraception (unweighted n = 2,771)
Full size table

The distribution of experiencing a challenge/delay by key reproductive health characteristics is presented in Table 5. A higher portion (47.4%) of those who experienced a challenge/delay were current SARC users compared to those who did not experience a challenge/delay (23.1%; p < 0.001). Additionally, those using a preferred contraceptive method comprised a smaller portion (34.1%) of those who experienced a challenge/delay compared to the subgroup who did not experience a challenge/delay (51.2%; p < 0.001). Of those who experienced a challenge/delay, 72.0% had also experienced 1 or more types of discrimination in a family planning setting; of those who did not experience a challenge or delay, 48.5% experienced 1 or more types of discrimination (p < 0.001). Lastly, those who did not receive PCCC from the most recent healthcare provider they saw for contraception comprised a larger portion (75.6%) of those who experienced a challenge/delay compared to those who did not experience a challenge/delay (62.5%; p = 0.002).

Table 5 Bivariate analyses of reproductive health characteristics and experiencing a challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception among a 2022 national sample of 15- to 44-year-olds who had ever used or tried to obtain contraception (unweighted n = 2,771)
Full size table

Finally, we used logistic regression analyses to investigate the association between previously experiencing a challenge/delay and measures of contraceptive self-efficacy (Table 6). In adjusted analyses, experiencing a challenge/delay in the past year was associated with 86% lower odds that an individual felt very/somewhat confident about obtaining desired contraception compared to those that did not experience a challenge/delay (aOR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07–0.25; Model 1). Experiencing a recent challenge/delay was also associated with our second measure of self-efficacy: perceived ease of switching contraceptive methods (Model 2). In adjusted analyses, experiencing a challenge/delay in the last year was associated with 52% lower odds that an individual felt it would be very/somewhat easy to switch contraceptive methods (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33–0.71).

Table 6 Associations between experiencing a challenge or delay and measures of contraceptive self-efficacy among a 2022 national sample of 15- to 44-year-olds who had ever used or tried to obtain contraception (n = 2,771)
Full size table

Discussion

Person-centered contraceptive access entails the opportunity to choose and access a preferred contraceptive method, including starting, switching, and discontinuing when desired [3, 24, 30]. Previous research has found the ability to select and obtain a preferred contraceptive method is associated with consistent and effective contraceptive use and leads to positive health, social, and economic outcomes [64–66]. Our research suggests that experiencing a challenge/delay has implications not only for recent contraceptive access but also influences self-efficacy, potentially inhibiting future ability to obtain and use desired contraception. This can undermine individual reproductive self-determination, as well as SRH equity at the population level. While previous research has focused on either contraceptive barriers or self-efficacy, this is the first study to our knowledge that quantitatively analyzes the relationship between a novel, person-centered metric of experiencing a challenge or delay obtaining desired contraception in the past 12 months and measures of self-efficacy. We use a nationally representative data set, which provides a high level of generalizability to the U.S. population.

In our analyses, the most common types of challenges and delays were logistical and financial, consistent with previous literature [10, 15, 16]. Among those who experienced a challenge/delay obtaining desired contraception, higher proportions were younger, identified as non-heterosexual, had lower educational attainment, and faced greater financial constraints. These findings align with evidence linking structural inequities to contraceptive access barriers [12, 14, 20, 24]. Adjusted analyses reveal that experiencing a challenge or delay was associated with significantly lower odds of contraceptive self-efficacy, particularly confidence in obtaining a desired method and perceived ease of switching methods. To further explore this association, future research should examine additional dimensions of self-efficacy and explore how specific barriers, such as informational versus logistical challenges, influence outcomes. Additionally, future work could consider these associations in contexts with fewer structural barriers, such as countries with universal healthcare systems.

Implications for policy and practice

To improve person-centered contraceptive access, barriers at the structural level must be addressed, especially regarding logistics and cost, the most frequent challenges experienced in our study. Various strategies can be used to mitigate these challenges, such as advancing community-based approaches to contraceptive access (including over-the-counter, telehealth, and pharmacist-prescribing [24, 27]) and ensuring insurance coverage for these services. Increasing length of supply and expanding scope of practice laws for those who can offer contraception can also be helpful in improving access [67–69].

Additionally, it is important to consider how provider behavior and the quality of contraceptive care can reduce contraceptive barriers and improve self-efficacy. For example, previous research suggests that provider bias and discrimination can inhibit access by influencing patient decision-making and reducing self-efficacy [11, 70, 71]. Therefore, it is crucial that patient needs and preferences are centered in patient-provider discussions regarding contraception, whether for initial contraceptive method selection and preferences, ongoing satisfaction, or desires around switching/discontinuing [67, 72, 73]. This is especially important for young, low-income, and socially marginalized populations, which our research suggests may be more likely to experience barriers to contraceptive access. Institutions and individuals must remain conscious of how their own beliefs and practices can show up as assumptions about what is “best” when it comes to family size, pregnancy spacing, and approaches to fertility and contraception [74].

Limitations

There were several limitations to this study. First, although we asked about the type of challenge/delay experienced, our survey did not include follow-up questions to garner additional details. Therefore, we are unable to ascertain when, where, with whom, or how long ago the respondent experienced challenges or delays—important details that future research should address to shed light on strategies to address contraceptive access barriers. Additionally, given that the survey question only asked about challenges/delays experienced in the past 12 months, we do not have information about barriers experienced outside that time frame, which could also impact self-efficacy. Contraceptive self-efficacy is a complex construct. While we included straightforward questions in our survey related to the key aspects of self-efficacy, our measures likely do not fully capture the nuance of this construct. Last, we excluded from the sample people not assigned female sex at birth and those using permanent contraception or who were otherwise infecund, so our results may not generalize to these populations who may have also experienced contraceptive challenges or delays.

Conclusions

Person-centered metrics of contraceptive access, compared to traditional measures focused on contraceptive use and services performed, are crucial to achieve SRH equity. This study, utilizing various person-centered metrics, found encountering challenges or delays has implications not only for recent contraceptive access, but also influences self-efficacy—potentially inhibiting future ability to obtain and use desired contraception. Given these short- and long-term impacts, we urge policymakers, clinicians, and researchers to support policies and practices that reduce barriers to person-centered contraceptive access.

Availability of data and materials

The data and codebook will be publicly available from the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/wvb5m/

Abbreviations

SRH:

Sexual and reproductive health

BIPOC:

Black, indigenous, and people of color

IUD:

Intrauterine device

SARC:

Short-acting reversible contraception

LARC:

Long-acting reversible contraception

FABM:

Fertility awareness-based methods

PCCC:

Person-centered contraceptive counseling

aOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CI:

Confidence interval

ASAP:

As soon as possible

References

  1. Hart J, Crear-Perry J, Stern L. US sexual and reproductive health policy: which frameworks are needed now, and next steps forward. Am J Public Health. 2022;112:S518–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Stern L, Sterile H, Nguyen D, Moskosky S, Hart J. What is sexual and reproductive health equity and why does it matter for nurse practitioners? Womens Healthc. 2021;9:49–52.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Levesque J-F, Harris MF, Russell G. Patient-centred access to health care: conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. Int J Equity Health. 2013;12:18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dehlendorf C, Akers AY, Borrero S, Callegari LS, Cadena D, Gomez AM, et al. Evolving the preconception health framework: a call for reproductive and sexual health equity. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:234–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradley SEK, Casterline JB. Understanding unmet need: history, theory, and measurement. Stud Fam Plann. 2014;45:123–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Senderowicz L. Contraceptive autonomy: conceptions and measurement of a novel family planning indicator. Stud Fam Plann. 2020;51:161–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Holt K, Challa S, Alitubeera P, Atuyambe L, Dehlendorf C, Galavotti C, et al. Conceptualizing Contraceptive Agency: A Critical Step to Enable Human Rights-Based Family Planning Programs and Measurement. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2024. https://www.ghspjournal.org/content/early/2024/02/12/GHSP-D-23-00299. Accessed 19 Feb 2024.

  8. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2001. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/10027/crossing-the-quality-chasm-a-new-health-system-for-the. Accessed 23 Aug 2023.

  9. Gomez AM, Reed RD, Bennett AH, Kavanaugh M. Integrating sexual and reproductive health equity into public health goals and metrics: comparative analysis of healthy people 2030’s approach and a person-centered approach to contraceptive access using population-based data. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024;10:e58009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Fuentes L, Douglas-Hall A, Geddes CE, Kavanaugh ML. Primary and reproductive healthcare access and use among reproductive aged women and female family planning patients in 3 states. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0285825.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kavanaugh ML, Pliskin E, Hussain R. Associations between unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost and low-income patients’ access to and experiences of contraceptive care in the United States, 2015–2019. Contracept X. 2022;4:100076.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Chakraborty P, Gallo MF, Nawaz S, Smith MH, Hood RB, Chettri S, et al. Use of nonpreferred contraceptive methods among women in Ohio. Contraception. 2021;103:328–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Burke KL, Potter JE, White K. Unsatisfied contraceptive preferences due to cost among women in the United States. Contracept X. 2020;2:100032.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Swan LET, Vu H, Higgins JA, Bui LM, Malecki K, Green TL. Exploring financial stress and resource deprivation as barriers to preferred contraceptive use in Wisconsin in 2021. Contraception. 2022;115:22–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hopkins K, Yarger J, Rossetto I, Sanchez A, Brown E, Elmes S, et al. Use of preferred contraceptive method among young adults in Texas and California: a comparison by state and insurance coverage. PLoS ONE. 2023;18:e0290726.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Frederiksen B, Ranji U, Long M, Diep K, 2022. Contraception in the United States: a closer look at experiences, preferences, and coverage. KFF. 2022. https://www.kff.org/report-section/contraception-in-the-united-states-a-closer-look-at-experiences-preferences-and-coverage-findings/. Accessed 11 Nov 2022.

  17. Melnick AL, Rdesinski RE, Creach ED, Choi D, Harvey SM. The influence of nurse home visits, including provision of 3 months of contraceptives and contraceptive counseling, on perceived barriers to contraceptive use and contraceptive use self-efficacy. Womens Health Issues. 2008;18:471–81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Free the Pill. Behind the Counter: Findings from the 2022 Oral Contraceptives Access Survey Advocates for Youth. 2022 Sep. https://www.advocatesforyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BehindTheCounter-OralContraceptivesAccessReport-2022-1.pdf. Accessed 17 Jun 2024.

  19. Kilfoyle KA, Vitko M, O’Conor R, Bailey SC. Health literacy and women’s reproductive health: a systematic review. J Womens Health. 2016;25:1237–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Key K, Wollum A, Asetoyer C, Cervantes M, Lindsey A, Rivera RZ, et al. Challenges accessing contraceptive care and interest in over-the-counter oral contraceptive pill use among Black, Indigenous, and people of color: an online cross-sectional survey. Contraception. 2023;120:109950.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hall KS, Ela E, Zochowski MK, Caldwell A, Moniz M, McAndrew L, et al. “I don’t know enough to feel comfortable using them”: women’s knowledge of and perceived barriers to long-acting reversible contraceptives on a college campus. Contraception. 2016;93:556–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Decker MJ, Atyam TV, Zárate CG, Bayer AM, Bautista C, Saphir M. Adolescents’ perceived barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services in California: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:1263.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Henke L, Martins S, Boraas C. Associations between income status and perceived barriers to using long-acting reversible contraception: an exploratory study. Front Reprod Health. 2022. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.3389/frph.2022.856866.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Gomez AM, Bennett AH, Arcara J, Stern L, Bardwell J, Cadena D, et al. Estimates of use of preferred contraceptive method in the United States: a population-based study. Lancet Reg Health - Am. 2024;30:100662.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Contraceptive Use in the United States by Method. Guttmacher Inst. 2021. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-method-use-united-states. Accessed 26 Sep 2023.

  26. Daniels K, Abma JC. Contraceptive methods women have ever used: United States, 2015–2019. Natl Health Stat Rep. 2023. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.15620/cdc:134502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gomez AM, Bennett AH, Schulte A, Arcara J, Stern L, Aina AD, et al. Use of preferred source of contraception among users of the pill, patch, and ring in the US. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7:e2439191.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Power to Decide. Extended Supply of Contraception. 2022. https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/information/resource-library/extended-supply-contraception. Accessed 29 Mar 2023.

  29. Gavin L, Moskosky S, Carter M, Curtis K, Glass E, Godfrey EM, et al. Providing quality family planning services: recommendations of CDC and the U.S. office of population affairs. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63:1.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Downey MM, Arteaga S, Villaseñor E, Gómez AM. More than a destination: contraceptive decision making as a journey. Womens Health Issues. 2017;27:539–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Simmons RG, Baayd J, Waters M, Diener Z, Turok DK, Sanders JN. Assessing contraceptive use as a continuum: outcomes of a qualitative assessment of the contraceptive journey. Reprod Health. 2023;20:33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Darney BG, Biel FM, Oakley J, Coleman-Minahan K, Cottrell EK. Contraceptive method switching and long-acting reversible contraception removal in U.S. safety net clinics, 2016–2021. Obstet Gynecol. 2023;142:669–78.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Gómez AM, Fuentes L, Allina A. Women or LARC first? reproductive autonomy and the promotion of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014;46:171–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Boydell V, Smith RD, Collaborative (GLC) GL. Hidden in plain sight: a systematic review of coercion and long-acting reversible contraceptive methods (LARC). PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3:e0002131.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Amico JR, Bennett AH, Karasz A, Gold M. “I wish they could hold on a little longer”: physicians’ experiences with requests for early IUD removal. Contraception. 2017;96:106–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Longmore MA, Manning WD, Giordano PC, Rudolph JL. Contraceptive self-efficacy: does it influence adolescents’ contraceptive use? J Health Soc Behav. 2003;44:45–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hamidi OP, Deimling T, Lehman E, Weisman C, Chuang C. High self-efficacy is associated with prescription contraceptive use. Womens Health Issues. 2018;28:509–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84:191–215.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bandura A. Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am Psychol. 1989;44:1175–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Farrell K, Wicks MN, Martin JC. Chronic disease self-management improved with enhanced self-efficacy. Clin Nurs Res. 2004;13:289–308.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee JY, Divaris K, Baker AD, Rozier RG, Vann WF. The relationship of oral health literacy and self-efficacy with oral health status and dental neglect. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:923–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Nezami BT, Lang W, Jakicic JM, Davis KK, Polzien K, Rickman AD, et al. The effect of self-efficacy on behavior and weight in a behavioral weight-loss intervention. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2016. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1037/hea0000378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis N, Biddle SJ. The influence of self-efficacy and past behaviour on the physical activity intentions of young people. J Sports Sci. 2001;19:711–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Shafaei FS, Mirghafourvand M, Havizari S. The effect of prenatal counseling on breastfeeding self-efficacy and frequency of breastfeeding problems in mothers with previous unsuccessful breastfeeding: a randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20:94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Bello JK, Lapin B, Poston L, Hirshfeld M, Hosack A. The role of patient activation in contraceptive use. Womens Health Issues. 2016;26:161–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tomaszewski D, Aronson BD, Kading M, Morisky D. Relationship between self-efficacy and patient knowledge on adherence to oral contraceptives using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Reprod Health. 2017;14:110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Hémono R, Gatare E, Kayitesi L, Packel L, Hunter LA, Kunesh J, et al. CyberRwanda’s pathway to impact: results from a cluster-randomized trial of adolescent family planning knowledge, beliefs, self-efficacy, and behavior. J Adolesc Health. 2024;74:1239–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jaccard J, Levitz N. Counseling adolescents about contraception: towards the development of an evidence-based protocol for contraceptive counselors. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. 2013;52:S6-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Assari S. General self-efficacy and mortality in the USA; racial differences. J Racial Ethn Health Dispar. 2017;4:746–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bleidorn W, Kretzschmar A, Rauthmann JF, Orth U, Denissen JJA, Hopwood CJ. Self-esteem and income over time. Psychol Sci. 2023. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1177/09567976231185129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hughes M, Demo DH. Self-perceptions of black Americans: self-esteem and personal efficacy. Am J Sociol. 1989;95:132–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Reed J, England P, Littlejohn K, Bass BC, Caudillo ML. Consistent and inconsistent contraception among young women: insights from qualitative interviews. Fam Relat. 2014;63:244–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Office of Population Affairs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Performance Measures: Contraceptive Care Measures. 2017. https://www.hhs.gov/opa/performance-measures/index.html. Accessed 23 Aug 2023.

  54. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2030: Family Planning. 2020. https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/family-planning. Accessed 16 Feb 2024.

  55. Maril RS. From liberation to (re)criminalization: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, bodily autonomy, and the expansion of state rights. SMU Law Rev. 2023;76:551–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Kaufman R, Brown R, Coral CM, Jacob J, Onyango M, Thomasen K. Global impacts of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and abortion regression in the United States. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9673802/. Accessed 29 Sep 2023.

  57. Gomez AM, Arcara J, Bennett AH, Marshall CJ. Identifying Person-Centered Contraceptive Need to Advance Contraceptive Access. SHARE. 2024. https://www.share.berkeley.edu/person-centered-contraceptive-access. Accessed 31 Jan 2024.

  58. NORC. Technical overview of the AmeriSpeak panel, NORC’s probability-based household panel. Chicago, IL: NORC at the University of Chicago. 2022 Feb. https://amerispeak.norc.org/Documents/Research/AmeriSpeak%20Technical%20Overview%202019%2002%2018.pdf. Accessed 17 Jun 2024.

  59. Contraceptive Effectiveness in the United States. Guttmacher Inst. 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-effectiveness-united-states. Accessed 12 May 2024.

  60. Bird ST, Bogart LM. Birth control conspiracy beliefs, perceived discrimination, and contraception among African Americans: an exploratory study. J Health Psychol. 2003;8:263–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Partnership for Quality Measurement. Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling (PCCC) measure. Partnership for Quality Measurement. 2020 Nov. https://p4qm.org/measures/3543. Accessed 17 Jun 2024.

  62. Rao JNK, Scott AJ. The analysis of categorical data from complex sample surveys: chi-squared tests for goodness of fit and independence in two-way tables. J Am Stat Assoc. 1981;76:221–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rao JNK, Scott AJ. On chi-squared tests for multiway contingency tables with cell proportions estimated from survey data. Ann Stat. 1984;12:46–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Stevenson AJ, Genadek KR, Yeatman S, Mollborn S, Menken JA. The impact of contraceptive access on high school graduation. Sci Adv. 2021;7:eabf6732.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Axelson SM, Sealy GA, McDonald-Mosley RE. Reproductive well-being: a framework for expanding contraceptive access. Am J Public Health. 2022;112:S504–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Steinberg JR, Marthey D, Xie L, Boudreaux M. Contraceptive method type and satisfaction, confidence in use, and switching intentions. Contraception. 2021;104:176–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Ball DrK. Study: Family Planning Services Need Better Integration in Primary Care. Contracept Technol Update. 2023 Oct 1. https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/study-family-planning-services-need-better-integration-in-primary-care. Accessed 27 Sep 2023.

  68. Speer K. State Options Addressing Access to Contraception. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2023 Apr. https://www.ncsl.org/health/state-options-addressing-access-to-contraception. Accessed 17 Jun 2024.

  69. Strasser J, Schenk E, Luo Q, Bodas M, Murray M, Chen C. Contraception usage and workforce trends through 2022. JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7:e246044.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Mann ES, Chen AM, Johnson CL. Doctor knows best? Provider bias in the context of contraceptive counseling in the United States. Contraception. 2022;110:66–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Dehlendorf C, Anderson N, Vittinghoff E, Grumbach K, Levy K, Steinauer J. Quality and content of patient-provider communication about contraception: differences by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Womens Health Issues. 2017;27:530–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Santana MJ, Manalili K, Jolley RJ, Zelinsky S, Quan H, Lu M. How to practice person-centred care: a conceptual framework. Health Expect. 2018;21:429–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schulte A, Biggs MA. Association Between Facility and Clinician Characteristics and Family Planning Services Provided During U.S. Outpatient Care Visits. Womens Health Issues. 2023. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049386723001287. Accessed 28 Aug 2023.

  74. Cadena DS, Chaudhri A, Scott C. Contraceptive care using reproductive justice principles: beyond access. Am J Public Health. 2022;112:S494–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank additional members of the Person-Centered Contraceptive Access Metrics Working Group for sharing their expertise, time, and insights to help conceptualize and prioritize this metric, including: Angela D. Aina, Sue Moskosky, Antoinette Nguyen, Sheila Desai, Alicia Luchowski, Denicia Sam Cadena, Christine Dehlendorf, and Ellen Pliska. Thank you to Jamie Hart and Lisa Stern from Coalition to Expand Contraceptive Access for support in designing and facilitating the working group meetings. We acknowledge Brenda Mathias and Mayra Cazares-Minero for supporting data collection and analysis.

Funding

This research was supported by Arnold Ventures.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sexual Health and Reproductive Equity Program, School of Social Welfare, University of California, 120 Haviland Hall MC 7400, Berkeley, CA, 94720-7400, USA

    Alex Schulte, Ariana H. Bennett, Jennet Arcara & Anu Manchikanti Gomez

  2. Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA, USA

    Jennet Arcara

  3. Converge, Jackson, MS, USA

    Jamie Bardwell

  4. Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, Chicago, IL, USA

    Aisha Chaudhri

  5. Advocates for Youth, Washington, DC, USA

    Laura Davis

  6. Kaiser Family Foundation, San Francisco, CA, USA

    Brittni Frederiksen

  7. National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, Washington, DC, USA

    Elizabeth Jones

  8. Independent Consultant, Brooklyn, NY, USA

    Catherine Labiran

  9. Power to Decide, Washington, DC, USA

    Raegan McDonald-Mosley

  10. Center for Reproductive Health Research in the Southeast (RISE), Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Whitney Rice

  11. NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, NY, USA

    Tara Stein

  12. Nursing Student, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ena Suseth Valladares

  13. Resound Research for Reproductive Health, Austin, TX, USA

    Kari White

  14. School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Cassondra Marshall

Authors
  1. Alex Schulte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ariana H. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jennet Arcara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jamie Bardwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aisha Chaudhri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Laura Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Brittni Frederiksen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Elizabeth Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Catherine Labiran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  10. Raegan McDonald-Mosley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  11. Whitney Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  12. Tara Stein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ena Suseth Valladares
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  14. Kari White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  15. Cassondra Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  16. Anu Manchikanti Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AMG, JA, and CM conceptualized the study and designed the methodology. AMG and CM acquired funding. AMG supervised the study. AMG, AHB, and JA provided project administration. AHB and JA collected data. AS, AMG, AHB, and JA conducted the data analysis. AS, AMG, and AHB accessed and verified the underlying data in the manuscript. AS, AMG, and AHB interpreted the data. AS wrote the original draft of the manuscript, and all authors contributed to writing by reviewing and editing the manuscript. AMG had final responsibility for the decision to submit the study for publication. AS, AHB, JA, JB, AC, LD, BF, EJ, CL, RM, WR, TS, ESV, KW, CM, and AMG contributed to the conceptualization of the manuscript and development of the person-centered challenge/delay metric.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anu Manchikanti Gomez.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

AC, CL, ESV, KW, and WR received honoraria from the University of California, Berkeley for participation in the Person-Centered Contraceptive Access Metrics Working Group for this project. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schulte, A., Bennett, A.H., Arcara, J. et al. Relationship between experiencing a challenge or delay accessing contraception and contraceptive self-efficacy: Data from a 2022 nationally representative online survey. Reprod Health 22, 54 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12978-025-02003-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12978-025-02003-3

Keywords

Reproductive Health

ISSN: 1742-4755