Introduction The objective of this study was to compare ever-in life contraception use, use of contraception at current conception, and planned use of contraception after an induced abortion, among three groups of women: migrants, second-generation migrants and non-migrant women, and to compare the types of contraception methods used and intended for future use among the three groups of women.
Methods The cross-sectional study administered a questionnaire face-to-face to women aged 18 years and older who were seeking abortion care at one of six abortion clinics in Stockholm County from January to April 2015.
Results The analysis included 637 women. Migrants and second-generation migrants were less likely to have used contraception historically, at the time of the current conception, and to plan to use contraception after their induced abortion compared with non-migrant women. Historically, non-migrants had used pills (89%) and withdrawal (24%) while migrants had used the copper intrauterine device (24%) to a higher extent compared to the other two groups of women. Both the migrants (65%) and second-generation migrants (61%) were more likely than the non-migrants (48%) to be planning to use long-acting reversible contraception.
Conclusions Lower proportions of contraception use were found in migrants and second-generation migrants than in non-migrants. In addition, there were significant differences in the types of contraception methods used historically and intended for future use.
- induced abortion
- ethnic minority migrants
Statistics from Altmetric.com
KEI and ECL contributed equally.
Contributors KEI designed and implemented the study at the clinics, collected the data, cleaned and analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. ECL designed and implemented the study at the clinics, collected the data, cleaned and analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. KG-D secured the funding and revised the draft paper. BE secured the funding, designed the study and revised the draft paper. MK-A secured the funding, designed the study and revised the draft paper.
Funding This work was supported by FORTE Dnr 2013-2025 and FORTE Dnr 2016-01063.
Competing interests Dr. Emtell Iwarsson reports non-financial support from Bayer AB, non-financial support from RemovAid AS, outside the submitted work; Dr. Larsson has nothing to disclose. Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson reports personal fees from Bayer Ag, MSD/Merck, Exeltis, Gedeon Richter, Actavis, Ferring, HRA-Pharma, Exelgyn, SunPharma, Natural Cycles, outside the submitted work; Dr. Essén has nothing to disclose. Dr. Klingberg-Allvin has nothing to disclose.
Patient consent Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Correction notice Since this paper was first published online, a duplicate reference 25 has been deleted and a line from the supplementary file title has been removed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.