Factors influencing contraception continuation rates: The oral and the intrauterine methods


The technique of multi-sort analysis was used to compare the relative duration of use of oral and intrauterine contraception among low socio-economic groups in Baltimore City. The clinical records of over 12,000 women who had received contraception through the Baltimore public services were analyzed. The type of method a woman used was found to be the most important factor affecting her probability of continuing contraception. Her age, race, and how long she had been using the method also influenced this probability. The strictness of the criteria used for the definition of continuation rates and the fact that experience was incomplete for many intrauterine contraceptors probably in part explain the somewhat low continuation rates obtained for both methods. It is suggested that the intrinsic characteristics of each method may lead to a clinical impression favoring the oral even when statistical evidence, as presented here, favors the intrauterine method.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Baker, Susan P. 1965. Adjusted Life Table Program, LIFADJ. Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene, Department of Chronic Diseases. (rnimeographed.)

  2. Baltimore City Health Department, Bureau of Biostastics. 1964. Baltimore City Census Tract Manual.

  3. Baltimore City Health Department, Research and Planning Section. 1963.Special Statistical Report: Population Characteristics, 1950 and 1960.

  4. Frank, Richard, and Christopher Tietze. 1965. Acceptance of an oral contraceptive program in a large metropolitan area. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 93: 122–127.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jones, Gavin., W. Parker Mauldin. 1967. Use of oral contraceptives: with special reference to developing countries. Studies in Family Planning 24: 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Mauldin, W. Parker. 1967. Retention of IUDs. an international comparison. Studies in Family Planning 18:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Merrell, Margaret, and Lawrence E. Shulman. 1956. Determination of prognosis in chronic disease, illustrated by systemic lupus erythematosus. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1: 12–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Reinke, William A. and Timothy D. Baker. 1967.Measuring effects of demographic variables on health services utilization. Health Service Research; Spring 1967: 61–75.

  9. Tietze, Christopher. 1965. History and statistical evaluation of intrauterine contraceptive devices. In Mindel C. Sheps and Jeanne C. Ridley (eds.), Public Health and Population Change. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. —. 1966. Contraception with intrauterine devices, 1959–1966. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 96, 7: 1046.

    Google Scholar 

  11. —. 1967. Intrauterine contraception: research report (7th progress report). Studies in Family Planning 18:20–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Westoff, Charles F. and Norman B. Ryder. 1968. Duration of use of oral contraception in the United States, 1960–1965. Publio Health Reports 83:277–287.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. -Françoise Hall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hall, M.F., Reinke, W.A. Factors influencing contraception continuation rates: The oral and the intrauterine methods. Demography 6, 335–346 (1969). https://doi.org/10.2307/2060401

Download citation


  • Family Planning Program
  • Continuation Rate
  • Baltimore City
  • Johns Hopkins School
  • Oral Method