Advertisement

Maternal and Child Health Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 145–152 | Cite as

Geographic Access to Family Planning Facilities and the Risk of Unintended and Teenage Pregnancy

  • David C. GoodmanEmail author
  • Lorraine V. Klerman
  • Kay A. Johnson
  • Chiang-hua Chang
  • Nancy Marth
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives: This study tested the hypotheses that greater geographic access to family planning facilities is associated with lower rates of unintended and teenage pregnancies. Methods: State Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) and natality files in four states were used to locate unintended and teenage births, respectively. Geographic availability was measured by cohort travel time to the nearest family planning facility, the presence of a family planning facility in a ZIP area, and the supply of primary care physicians and obstetric-gynecologists. Results: 83% of the PRAMS cohort and 80% of teenagers lived within 15 min or less of a facility and virtually none lived more than 30 min. Adjusted odds ratios did not demonstrate a statistically significant trend to a higher risk of unintended pregnancies with longer travel time. Similarly there was no association with unintended pregnancy and the presence of a family planning facility within the ZIP area of maternal residence, or with the supply of physicians capable of providing family planning services. Both crude and adjusted relative rates of teenage pregnancies were significantly lower with further distance from family planning sites and with the absence of a facility in the ZIP area of residence. In adjusted models, the supply of obstetricians-gynecologists and primary care physicians was not significantly associated with decreased teen pregnancies. Conclusions: This study found no relationship between greater geographic availability of family planning facilities and a risk of unintended pregnancies. Greater geographic availability of family planning services was associated with a higher risk of teenage pregnancy, although these results may be confounded by facilities locating in areas with greater family planning needs.

Keywords

Family planning Unintended births Teenage births Geographic proximity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (MM-0606-03/03). The authors wish to thank the officials and staffs in the four states whose collaboration made this study possible: Alabama, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Washington.

References

  1. 1.
    Frost JJ. Public or private providers? U.S. women’s use of reproductive health services. Fam Plann Perspect 2001;33:4–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frost JJ, Frohwirth L, Purcell A. The availability and use of publicly funded family planning clinics: U.S. trends, 1994–2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2004;36:206–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sonfield A, Gold R. Conservatives’ agenda threatens public funding for family planning. Guttmacher Rep Public Pol 2005;8:4–7.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Consequences of unintended pregnancy. In: Brown S, Eisenberg L, editors. The best intentions: Unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995, p. 50–90.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Programs to Reduce Unintended Pregnancy. In: Brown S, Eisenberg L, editors. The best intentions: unintended pregnancy and the well-being of children and families. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1995, p. 218–49.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arcury TA, Gesler WM, Preisser JS, Sherman J, Spencer J, Perin J. The effects of geography and spatial behavior on health care utilization among the residents of a rural region. Health Serv Res 2005;40:135–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman D, Fisher E, Little G, Stukel T, Chang C, Schoendorf K. The relation between the availability of neonatal intensive care and neonatal mortality. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1538–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodman D, Fisher E, Stukel T, Chang C. The distance to community medical care and the likelihood of hospitalization: Is closer always better? Am J Public Health 1997;87:1144–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? J Am Med Assoc 1994;272:859–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nemet GF, Bailey AJ. Distance and health care utilization among the rural elderly. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:1197–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor D, Chavez G. Small area analysis on a large scale—The California experience in mapping teenage birth “hot spots” for resource allocation. J Public Health Manag Pract 2002;8:33–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heck KE, Schoendorf KC, Chavez GF. The influence of proximity of prenatal services on small-for-gestational-age birth. J Community Health 2002;27:15–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilbert BC, Shulman HB, Fischer LA, Rogers MM. The pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system (PRAMS): Methods and 1996 response rates from 11 states. Matern Child Health J 1999;3:199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S Census. ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. http://www.census.gov/ geo/ZCTA/zcta.html. Accessed February 15, 2006.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pasko T, Smart D. Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US 2003–2004 Edition. Chicago, IL: AMA Press; 2003.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beck L, Johnson C, Morrow B, Lipscomb L, Gaffield M, Colley Gilbert B, Rogers M, Whitehead N. PRAMS 1999 surveillance report. Atlanta, GA: Division of reproductive health, national center for chronic disease prevention and health promotion, centers for disease control and prevention; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Marth NJ, Goodman DC. Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA 2003;290:2703–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodman DC, Mick SS, Bott D, Stukel T, Chang CH, Marth N, Poage J, Carretta HJ. Primary care service areas: a new tool for the evaluation of primary care services. Health Serv Res 2003;38:287–309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wennberg J, Cooper M (series editors) . The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care—1998. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association; 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Averett SL, Rees DI, Argys LM. The impact of government policies and neighborhood characteristics on teenage sexual activity and contraceptive use. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1773–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Anderson JE, Cope LG. The impact of family planning program activity on fertility. Fam Plann Perspect 1987;19:152–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David C. Goodman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lorraine V. Klerman
    • 2
  • Kay A. Johnson
    • 1
  • Chiang-hua Chang
    • 1
  • Nancy Marth
    • 1
  1. 1.The Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences and the Department of PediatricsDartmouth Medical SchoolHanoverUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Child, Youth, and Family Policy, The Heller School for Social Policy and ManagementBrandeis UniversityWalthamUSA

Personalised recommendations