Geographic Access to Family Planning Facilities and the Risk of Unintended and Teenage Pregnancy
- 372 Downloads
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.
KeywordsFamily planning Unintended births Teenage births Geographic proximity
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.
- 3.Sonfield A, Gold R. Conservatives’ agenda threatens public funding for family planning. Guttmacher Rep Public Pol 2005;8:4–7.Google Scholar
- 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.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
- 14.U.S Census. ZIP Code Tabulation Areas. http://www.census.gov/ geo/ZCTA/zcta.html. Accessed February 15, 2006.Google Scholar
- 15.Pasko T, Smart D. Physician Characteristics and Distribution in the US 2003–2004 Edition. Chicago, IL: AMA Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 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
- 19.Wennberg J, Cooper M (series editors) . The Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care—1998. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: American Hospital Association; 1997.Google Scholar