Skip to main content
HHS Author Manuscripts logoLink to HHS Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jul 28.
Published in final edited form as: Contraception. 2016 Aug 30;94(6):579–581. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.08.007

Removing medical barriers to contraception — evidence-based recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016

Kathryn M Curtis 1,*, Naomi K Tepper 1, Tara C Jatlaoui 1, Maura K Whiteman 1
PMCID: PMC11283815  NIHMSID: NIHMS1982912  PMID: 27589882

Good news! For the first time in three decades, the unintended pregnancy rate in the United States has dropped — from over 50% during 1981–2008 to 45% between 2008 and 2011 [1]. The US teen pregnancy rate has been falling for some time and is at a historic low [2]. At the same time, overall contraceptive use in the United States has remained fairly steady at about 60% among all females ages 15–44 years, but recently, use of the most effective, long-acting, reversible methods (LARCs) — intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants — has been increasing [35]. Several large projects, including the Contraceptive Choice Project, family planning initiatives in Colorado and Iowa, and a randomized cluster trial of a clinical training intervention, have demonstrated success in increasing the use of contraception overall, including the most effective methods, and most importantly, decreasing unintended pregnancy and abortion rates [69]. Finally, the Affordable Care Act requires most health plans to cover certain preventive services for women, including contraceptive methods and counseling [10,11].

It is within this context that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has updated its evidence-based recommendations for health care providers on contraceptive use — U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016 (US MEC) and U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2016 (US SPR) [12,13]. Providers are able to offer women, men and couples more safe and effective choices for contraception than ever before. With these expanded options comes the need for evidence-based guidance to help health care providers offer quality family planning care to their patients, including choosing the most appropriate contraceptive method for individual circumstances and using that method correctly, consistently and continuously to maximize effectiveness [12,13]. Evidence-based guidance can also support removal of unnecessary medical barriers to access and successful use of contraceptive methods. Barriers to choosing the optimal contraceptive method can include unnecessary restrictions based on age, parity or presence of a medical condition. Barriers to initiating and continuing contraceptive methods impede successful use and include unnecessary screening examinations and tests before starting a method (e.g., a pelvic examination before initiation of combined oral contraceptives), inability to receive contraception on the same day as the visit (e.g., waiting for test results that may not be needed or waiting until the woman’s next menstrual cycle to start contraceptive use) and difficulty obtaining continued contraceptive supplies (e.g., requiring unnecessary follow-up visits and restrictions on number of pill packs dispensed at one time) [13].

Based on global guidance from the World Health Organization [14,15], CDC published the first US MEC in 2010 followed by the US SPR in 2013 [16,17]. Since then, these recommendations have been included in the clinical recommendations for the Title X Family Planning Program [18], endorsed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists [19,20] and disseminated widely to women’s health, adolescent and primary care providers. CDC committed to updating the guidance on a regular basis, incorporating new evidence and adding new recommendations to respond to provider needs [16,17].

During 2015–2016, CDC conducted a formal process to revise and update these recommendations, and this issue of Contraception contains many of the systematic reviews on which the new guidance is based [2133]. New recommendations on the safe use of contraceptive methods were added to the US MEC for women with multiple sclerosis and cystic fibrosis and for those using certain psychotropic drugs or St. John’s wort. The emergency contraception recommendations were revised, including the addition of ulipristal acetate. CDC also reviewed new evidence and revised recommendations for postpartum women; women who are breastfeeding; women with known dyslipidemias, migraine headaches, superficial venous disease, gestational trophoblastic disease, sexually transmitted diseases and human immunodeficiency virus; and women receiving antiretroviral therapy. In the US SPR, CDC added recommendations on medications to ease IUD insertion and revised recommendations for starting regular contraception after the use of emergency contraception. During this process, CDC identified gaps in the evidence, with the goal of encouraging investigation that can lead to further refinement of the recommendations. A commentary on these research gaps is also included in this issue of Contraception [34]. Finally, CDC has developed and updated provider tools that can assist with implementation of the recommendations in practice, including summary charts for both the US MEC and US SPR, a US MEC wheel and an updated electronic app that includes both the US MEC and US SPR recommendations [35].

While recommendations have been updated and will continue to be modified as supported by new evidence, the main messages in the guidance remain the same [12,13]. Most women — including adolescents, those who are postpartum and those with certain medical conditions or other specific characteristics — can safely use most methods of contraception. Most women can start contraceptive methods on the day they request them, and few, if any, tests or examinations are needed before initiating any method. Routine follow-up for most women after starting a contraceptive method includes assessment of her satisfaction with the method, concerns about the method and changes in medical eligibility for continued use. All women, men and couples seeking contraception should have access to the full range of contraceptive methods and counseling and support to use their chosen method successfully.

While exciting progress has been made in reducing unintended pregnancy in the United States, unnecessary barriers to contraception access and use remain. The US MEC and US SPR can help providers continue to remove medical barriers, as they work with patients to choose and use contraception successfully, enabling continued declines in unintended and teen pregnancy.

Footnotes

The authors have no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest to disclose. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

References

  • [1].Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008–2011. Med 2016;374:843–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Kost K, Maddow-Zimet I. U.S. teenage pregnancies, births and abortions. 2011: national trends by age, race and ethnicity. Guttmacher Institute; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Daniels K, Daugherty J, Jones J, Mosher W. Current contraceptive use and variation by selected characteristics among women aged 15–44: United States, 2011–2013. National Health Statistics Reports; 2015. p. 1–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982–2002. Advance data; 2004. p. 1–36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. women, 2009–2012. Obstet Gynecol 2015;126:917–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Birgisson NE, Zhao Q, Secura GM, Madden T, Peipert JF. Preventing unintended pregnancy: the contraceptive CHOICE project in review. J Womens Health 2015;24:349–53. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Harper CC, Rocca CH, Thompson KM, Morfesis J, Goodman S, Darney PD, et al. Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: a cluster randomised trial. Lancet 2015;386:562–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Ricketts S, Klingler G, Schwalberg R. Game change in Colorado: widespread use of long-acting reversible contraceptives and rapid decline in births among young, low-income women. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2014;46:125–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Biggs MA, Rocca CH, Brindis CD, Hirsch H, Grossman D. Did increasing use of highly effective contraception contribute to declining abortions in Iowa? Contraception 2015;91:167–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].HRSA. Women’s preventive services guidelines. http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/[accessed 08.20.2016].
  • [11].Fox J, Barfield W. Decreasing unintended pregnancy: opportunities created by the affordable care act. JAMA 2016. 10.1001/jama.2016.8800. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, Berry-Bibee E, Horton LG, Zapata LB, et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, Zapata LB, Horton LG, Jamieson DJ, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].World Health Organization. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  • [16].CDC. U S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59:1–86. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].CDC. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR Recomm Rep 2013;62:1–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Gavin L, Moskosky S, Carter M, Curtis K, Glass E, Godfrey E, et al. Providing quality family planning services: recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs. MMWR Recomm Rep 2014;63:1–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].ACOG. Committee opinion no. 505: understanding and using the U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:754–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].ACOG. Committee opinion no. 577: understanding and using the U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1132–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Tepper NK, Whiteman MK, Zapata LB, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Safety of hormonal contraceptives among women with migraine: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:630–40. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Tepper NK, Curtis KM, Nanda K, Jamieson DJ. Safety of intrauterine devices among women with HIV: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:713–24. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Tepper NK, Whiteman MK, Marchbanks PA, James AH, Curtis KM. Progestin-only contraception and thromboembolism: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:678–700. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.04.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Zapata LB, Oduyebo T, Whiteman MK, Houtchens MK, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Contraceptive use among women with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:612–20. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Zapata LB, Jatlaoui TC, Marchbanks PA, Curtis KM. Medications to ease intrauterine device insertion: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:739–59. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Whiteman MK, Oduyebo T, Zapata LB, Walker S, Curtis KM. Contraceptive safety among women with cystic fibrosis: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:621–9. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Berry-Bibee EN, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, Whiteman MK, Jamieson DJ, Curtis KM. Safety of intrauterine devices in breastfeeding women: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:725–38. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Berry-Bibee EN, Kim MJ, Simmons KB, Tepper NK, Riley HE, Pagano HP, et al. Drug interactions between hormonal contraceptives and psychotropic drugs: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:650–67. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Berry-Bibee EN, Kim MJ, Tepper NK, Riley HE, Curtis KM. Co-administration of St. John’s wort and hormonal contraceptives: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:668–77. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Horton LG, Simmons KB, Curtis KM. Combined hormonal contraceptive use among obese women and risk for cardiovascular events: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:590–604. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Pagano HP, Zapata LB, Berry-Bibee EN, Nanda K, Curtis KM. Safety of hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices among women with depressive and bipolar disorders: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:641–9. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Jatlaoui TC, Simmons KB, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine contraception initiation among women with current asymptomatic cervical infections or at increased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Contraception 2016;94:701–12. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Jatlaoui TC, Curtis KM. Safety and effectiveness data for emergency contraceptive pills among women with obesity: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:605–11. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Horton LG, Folger SG, Berry-Bibee E, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, Curtis KM. Research gaps from evidence-based contraception guidance: the U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016 and the U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. Contraception 2016;94:582–9. 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].CDC. CDC contraceptive guidance for health care providers. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/contraception_guidance.htm. 2016. [accessed 08.20.2016].

RESOURCES