You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 47, Issue 4
  • Disrupted prevention: condom and contraception access and use among young adults during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Disrupted prevention: condom and contraception access and use among young adults during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey
  1. Ruth Lewis1,
  2. Carolyn Blake1,
  3. Michal Shimonovich1,
  4. Nicky Coia2,
  5. Johann Duffy3,
  6. Yvonne Kerr4,
  7. Jill Wilson2,
  8. Cynthia Ann Graham5,
  9. Kirstin R Mitchell1
  1. 1 MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
  2. 2 Sandyford Sexual Health Service, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
  3. 3 Health Improvement Department, NHS Lanarkshire, Bothwell, South Lanarkshire, UK
  4. 4 Public Health, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK
  5. 5 Department of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ruth Lewis, MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit (SPHSU), University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK; ruth.lewis{at}glasgow.ac.uk

Abstract

Background The initial response to COVID-19 in the UK involved a rapid contraction of face-to-face sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services and widespread use of remote workarounds. This study sought to illuminate young people’s experiences of accessing and using condoms and contraception in the early months of the pandemic.

Methods We analysed data, including open-text responses, from an online survey conducted in June–July 2020 with a convenience sample of 2005 16–24-year-olds living in Scotland.

Results Among those who used condoms and contraception, one quarter reported that COVID-19 mitigation measures had made a difference to their access or use. Open-text responses revealed a landscape of disrupted prevention, including changes to sexual risk-taking and preventive practices, unwanted contraceptive pathways, unmet need for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing, and switches from freely provided to commercially sold condoms and contraception. Pandemic-related barriers to accessing free condoms and contraception included: (1) uncertainty about the legitimacy of accessing SRH care and self-censorship of need; (2) confusion about differences between SRH care and advice received from healthcare professionals during the pandemic compared with routine practice; and (3) exacerbation of existing access barriers, alongside reduced social support and resources to navigate SRH care.

Conclusions Emerging barriers to STI and pregnancy prevention within the context of COVID-19 have the potential to undermine positive SRH practices, and widen inequalities, among young people. As SRH services are restored amid evolving pandemic restrictions, messaging to support navigation of condom and contraception services should be co-created with young people.

  • contraception behavior
  • sexually transmitted diseases
  • COVID-19
  • sexual health
  • reproductive health
  • health services accessibility

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Participants in this study consented to sharing of anonymised data for research purposes only. The anonymised survey data will be deposited and made discoverable through the University of Glasgow Enlighten: Research data repository upon completion of the study (publication of main papers). Prior to that, researchers wishing to access the anonymised data can complete a data-sharing request for approval of the co-principal investigators.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2020-200975

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Participants in this study consented to sharing of anonymised data for research purposes only. The anonymised survey data will be deposited and made discoverable through the University of Glasgow Enlighten: Research data repository upon completion of the study (publication of main papers). Prior to that, researchers wishing to access the anonymised data can complete a data-sharing request for approval of the co-principal investigators.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @drruthlewis, @blakarolyn, @cygraham_graham, @KMitchinGlasgow

    • Contributors RL and CB co-led the design and conduct of the study, with contributions from KM, NC, JD, YK, JW and CG. RL, CB and KM conducted the qualitative analysis. MS conducted the statistical analysis. RL, CB and KM interpreted the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

    • Funding CONUNDRUM was jointly funded by NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS Lanarkshire and NHS Lothian, in partnership with the Scottish Government. RL, CB and KM are supported by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (Grant codes MC_UU_12017/11 and MC_UU_00022/3) and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (Grant code SPHSU11). MS is supported by the United Kingdom Medical Research Council (Grant codes MC_ST_U18004 and MC_UU_00022/2).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.