Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Aug 7.
Published in final edited form as: Womens Health Issues. 2025 Aug 7;35(5):350–358. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2025.06.004

Differences in contraceptive method discontinuation and contraceptive method preferences by disability status

Zoe H Pleasure a, Laura D Lindberg b
PMCID: PMC12468018  NIHMSID: NIHMS2095435  PMID: 40781014

Abstract

Background:

Contraceptive care delivery to people with disabilities must be contextualized within the U.S. history of stratified reproduction and eugenics. Significant sexual and reproductive health inequities have been documented between people with disabilities and those without disabilities in family planning service receipt and contraceptive method use. Little research has examined how discontinuation of contraception or dissatisfaction with contraceptive methods may differ for people with disabilities.

Objective:

This study assesses differences in contraceptive desires and experiences between disabled and non-disabled individuals.

Methods:

Our sample included self-identified female respondents from the 2011–2019 National Survey of Family Growth. We examined demographic and sexual and reproductive health differences between disabled and non-disabled respondents based on self-report of disabilities. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models estimated differences in contraceptive method discontinuation due to dissatisfaction and method choice based on cost.

Results:

Differences by disability status were found for reports of fecundity and the contraceptive method used in the past 12 months. In both unadjusted and adjusted models, significantly more disabled people than non-disabled people reported having discontinued their method because of dissatisfaction and having wanted to use a different method if cost were not an issue.

Conclusions:

Self-reported disabilities are associated with contraceptive method dissatisfaction and unmet contraceptive preferences. Efforts are needed to tailor person-centered clinical care that is responsive to this population’s reproductive wants and needs.

Introduction

Disability status and experiences of chronic health conditions may influence whether individuals receive wanted and needed reproductive healthcare, including contraceptive care. National studies estimate that nearly 20% of reproductive-age individuals live with a disability involving difficulty with hearing, vision, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living (Horner-Johnson et al., 2020, 2022). Experiences of disability may constrain reproductive health care access and reproductive health choices (Alhusen et al., 2021; Biggs et al., 2023), which occur in light of the historical context of forced sterilization and eugenics. In addition, the ongoing impact of structural ableism in medicine and public health often devalues the experiences and needs of disabled people (Lundberg & Chen, 2024). To support reproductive autonomy, disabled people and people with chronic health conditions should have access to the full spectrum of contraceptive methods and comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care (Hassan et al., 2023; Powell, 2023).

Research using nationally representative and state-level data provides evidence that contraceptive use and contraceptive service utilization differ by disability status. Women with disabilities are more likely to be sterilized and less likely to use moderately effective methods or long-acting reversible contraception (e.g., intrauterine devices (IUD) and implants) compared to non-disabled women (Haynes et al., 2018; J. Wu et al., 2018; J. P. Wu et al., 2017), as well as less likely to receive family planning services (Mosher et al., 2017). However, this narrow focus on contraceptive mix does not provide information about contraceptive users’ satisfaction with these methods or the use of non-preferred methods. Despite a growing body of research examining unmet contraceptive preferences (Burke et al., 2020; Burke & Potter, 2023; Gomez et al., 2024; He et al., 2017; Kavanaugh et al., 2022), to our knowledge, this issue has not been examined by disability status. Further research is needed to identify current patterns in method satisfaction and motivations for switching or discontinuing methods among disabled individuals. Recent changes in contraceptive service guidelines and an increased emphasis on person-centered and justice-informed sexual and reproductive healthcare may have helped reduce the disparities by disability status in contraceptive care and behaviors observed in earlier studies (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, n.d.; Dehlendorf et al., 2021).

In this study, we used a nationally representative household survey to assess potential differences in contraceptive experiences for disabled and non-disabled individuals. We examined differences by disability status in two key outcomes related to contraceptive satisfaction: report of stopping a contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction with the method, and report of a desire to switch to another contraceptive method or try a new method if cost were not a barrier to use. Understanding these experiences can help identify needs and provide the research and clinical care communities with potential mechanisms for interventions to improve contraceptive care for the disabled population.

Methods

Data

We used data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), a nationally representative, in-person, household-based survey of non-institutionalized U.S. adults aged 15–49 years old (National Center for Health Statistics, 2022).1 The NSFG asks about a range of sexual and reproductive health topics. The NSFG oversamples Black, Hispanic, and adolescent respondents. Interviews were conducted in respondents’ homes by highly trained interviewers. The survey was administered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) continuously from 2011 to 2019, with data releases of 2-year survey waves every 2 years (National Center for Health Statistics, 2020). We limited our sample to respondents who received the female respondent questionnaire. We pooled data from 2011 to 2019 to create a cross-sectional sample with an adequate number of disabled respondents for analysis. This resulted in a final unweighted analytic sample of 22,995 respondents.2

Measures

All measures used in these analyses were self-reported and collected during the face-to-face portion of the NSFG interview (Appendix A).

Exposure

The primary exposure of interest was disability status. The NSFG implemented a standardized set of disability items endorsed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CDC, 2019). Disability status was measured via the following six questions, with yes/no responses: “(1) Do you have serious difficulty hearing? (2) Do you have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses? (3) Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering or making decisions? (4) Do you have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? (5) Do you have difficulty dressing or bathing? and (6) Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping?” We created a binary measure of any disability and a categorical measure (0, 1, or 2+ disabilities) and examined the responses to each of the six disability questions separately.

Outcomes

We examined two outcomes related to satisfaction with contraceptive methods. The NSFG measures method discontinuation due to dissatisfaction with a single question asking whether the respondent has ever stopped a contraceptive method because they were dissatisfied with the method: “Some people try a method and then don’t use it again, or stop using it, because they are not satisfied with the method. Did you ever stop using a method because you were not satisfied with it in some way?” A second measure of contraceptive method satisfaction was an unfulfilled contraceptive preference due to cost; current contraceptive users were asked, “If you did not have to worry about cost and could use any type of contraceptive method available, would you want to use a different method?” and nonusers were asked, “If you did not have to worry about cost and could use any type of contraceptive method available, would you want to use a method?” We combined these responses into a single dichotomous measure; respondents were not asked further about their preferred method or if factors other than cost were a barrier to using it.

Covariates

First, we examined differences in the distribution of disability for key sociodemographic, sexual activity, and contraceptive use variables. These variables were age (15–19, 20–24, 25–29, 30–34, 35–39, 40+ years), race and ethnicity (Hispanic, Non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic other or multiple races), current health insurance status (Private; Medicaid or other state-sponsored plan; Medicare, military, or some other federal sponsored plan; No health insurance), sexual activity (oral, anal, or penile-vaginal sex) with an opposite sex partner in the past 12 months, sexual activity with a same sex partner in the past 12 months, desire for a baby/child sometime in the future, and the respondent’s fecundity status (the ability of the respondent to achieve pregnancy and carry a pregnancy to term) at the time of interview (Fecund; Surgically sterile, contraceptive; Surgically sterile, non-contraceptive; Sterile, non-surgical; Subfecund; Long interval (infertile 36+ months)). The NSFG creates the fecundity status variable from a series of questions about the respondent’s current pregnancy status, whether they or their partner received a sterilization procedure, difficulty with conceiving or delivering a baby, contraception use, and sexual activity. For the self-reported race and ethnicity variable, we used the recoded variable created by the NSFG to match the 1997 Office of Management and Budget guidance about reporting of racial and ethnic categories (National Center for Health Statistics, n.d.). We also examined the distribution and descriptive statistics for contraceptive use in the past 12 months, grouped by effectiveness (Highly effective, Moderately effective, Less effective, and No method).

Second, to create the adjusted models, we selected individual-level covariates that prior research suggests are associated with contraceptive use and experiences of contraceptive satisfaction. These included age, race and ethnicity, current health insurance status, sexual activity with opposite sex partner, and fecundity. Additionally, we adjusted the models for survey wave (2011–2013, 2013–2015, 2015–2017, and 2017–2019) to account for potential changes over time.

Analysis

All data management, cleaning, and analysis were performed in Stata version 18.0 (StataCorp, 2023). First, we calculated the prevalence of disability in our sample. Second, we calculated descriptive statistics for the covariates of interest by disability status. Third, we estimated unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models of the association between the disability measures and each outcome. For each outcome, we adjusted for survey wave, sexual activity in the past 12 months, fecundity, and demographics hypothesized to affect contraceptive method use (age, race/ethnicity, and insurance status). All model results are presented with odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and predicted probabilities. We assessed statistical significance at an alpha level of 0.05. We accounted for the complex survey design of the NSFG using the svy command in Stata. We employed appropriate 4-year and 8-year sampling weights, depending on the years in which the outcome of interest was assessed. The method dissatisfaction question was asked of all respondents in the survey waves from 2011 to 2019; evaluating cost as a barrier to preferred contraceptive method use was included in the survey rounds from 2015 to 2019. Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required for this project because the NSFG data are publicly available on the NCHS website, and the NCHS’s IRB has approved the dissemination of the public-use dataset.

Results

About one in five (19.5%) reproductive-age women reported a disability in the NSFG from 2011–2019. 12.8% reported one disability, and 6.7% reported multiple disabilities; serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions was the most common (13.4%) (Figure 1). We identified demographic differences between disabled and non-disabled individuals in the sample (Table 1). There were significant differences by age but not race/ethnicity (age: p<0.001, race/ethnicity: p= 0.96). Disabled individuals were more likely to have Medicaid or other state-sponsored health plans as insurance (31.4%) and less likely to have private insurance (43.1%) compared to non-disabled individuals (16.7% Medicaid, 64.4% private insurance, p=0.01). Over a quarter of the disabled sample (27.1%) were in the 2017–2019 survey round, compared to 22.2% in 2011–2013 (p <.001).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Distribution of the number of disabilities and the type of disabilities among women ages 15–49, 2011–2019 National Survey of Family Growth.

Note: This figure displays weighted percentages.

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics, sexual activity, and reproductive health by disability among women ages 15–49, 2011–2019 National Survey of Family Growth.

Total Not disabled Percent (%) Disabled X2 p-value
Demographic characteristics
Age 85.4 <0.001
 15–19 15.3 14.4 18.9
 20–24 16.8 16.7 17.1
 25–29 17.7 18.2 16.1
 30–34 17.4 18.0 14.8
 35–39 16.4 16.7 15.2
 40+ 16.4 16.0 17.9
Race/ethnicity 0.6 0.96
 Hispanic 20.6 20.5 20.8
 Non-Hispanic white 55.3 55.4 54.8
 Non-Hispanic Black 13.7 13.7 13.8
 Non-Hispanic other or multiple races 10.4 10.3 10.6
Insurance status 719.0 0.001
 Private 60.2 64.4 43.1
 Medicaid or other state-sponsored plan 19.6 16.7 31.4
 Medicare, military, or some other federal sponsored plan 4.6 4.1 7.0
 No health insuranceb 15.6 14.9 18.5
Survey wave 43.6 <0.001
 2011–2013 25.2 25.9 22.2
 2013–2015 25.9 26.2 24.4
 2015–2017 24.5 24.1 26.3
 2017–2019 24.5 23.8 27.1
Sexual activity and reproductive health factors
Sexually active with opposite sex 78.9
partnerc 91.5 92.4 87.8 <0.001
Sexually active with same sex partnerc 31.9 31.9 31.9 0.0 1.00
Desire for future baby/child 61.0 60.8 61.4 0.5 0.67
Contraceptive use in past 12 months 33.4 0.003
 Highly effective method 32.9 32.4 35.5
 Moderately effective method 21.7 22.5 18.0
 Less effective method 25.1 25.1 24.8
 No method 20.3 20.0 21.7
Fecundity 395.6 <0.001
 Fecund 68.7 71.1 58.8
 Surgically sterile, contraceptive 18.0 17.6 19.7
 Surgically sterile, non-contraceptive 0.9 0.7 2.0
 Sterile, non-surgical 2.1 1.6 4.0
 Subfecund 9.5 8.3 14.6
 Long interval (infertile 36+ months) 0.8 0.8 0.7
Open in a new tab
a

p-values are from chi-squared tests of independence.

b

This insurance category also includes individuals covered by the Indian Health Service or who have health insurance for only one health service.

c

Oral, anal, or penile-vaginal sex in the past year.

Recent sexual activity with an opposite-sex partner was less common among disabled than non-disabled individuals (87.8% vs. 92.4%, p<0.001), but recent sexual activity with a same-sex partner was equal between the two groups (31.9%, p=1.00). The two groups of respondents had different patterns of contraceptive method mix, with disabled respondents having greater use of highly effective methods (including sterilization, IUDs, and implants) (35.5% vs. 32.4%, respectively) and greater prevalence of no method use (21.7% vs. 20.0%, respectively, p=0.003). Disabled individuals had substantially lower overall reports of fecundity than non-disabled people (71.1% vs. 58.8%, p <.001), with higher reports of surgical sterilization for contraceptive reasons (19.7%) and higher reports of subfecunity (14.6%), as defined by the NSFG, than non-disabled individuals (17.6% and 8.3%, respectively). The desire for a baby or child in the future was not significantly different by disability status (p=0.67).

Stopped a contraceptive method due to dissatisfaction:

Overall patterns:

In unadjusted models, disabled respondents had 1.3 times the odds of having stopped a method due to dissatisfaction compared to respondents who were not disabled (OR=1.3, 95% CI: 1.2–1.5) (Figure 2), with 52.3% (95% CI: 49.9–54.8) of disabled respondents reporting that they had been dissatisfied with a method compared to 45.8% (95% CI: 44.3–47.2) of non-disabled respondents (Appendix B). The relationship between disability status and method dissatisfaction was not attenuated in the adjusted models, which adjusted for survey wave, sexual activity in the past 12 months, demographic factors, and fecundity. Individuals with a disability had 1.4 times the odds of being dissatisfied with their contraceptive method than those without disabilities in the final adjusted model (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2–1.6). In the adjusted model, the predicted probability of having stopped a method due to dissatisfaction with it was 54.4% (95% CI: 51.9–56.9) for disabled respondents and 46.5% (95% CI: 45.1–47.9) for non-disabled respondents (Appendix B).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions estimating the association between disability status and having stopped a contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction and desire to choose a method or different method if cost were not a barrier, among women ages 15–49, National Survey of Family Growth.

Note: CI = Confidence interval. All adjusted models are adjusted for survey wave, age, race/ethnicity, current health insurance, sexual activity with opposite-sex partner, and fecundity. The “stopped a contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction” regression models are among NSFG respondents in survey waves 2011–2019. The “desire to choose a method or different method if cost were not a barrier” regression models are among NSFG respondents in survey waves 2015–2019.

Type of disability and number of disabilities:

In unadjusted models, respondents with serious difficulty hearing (OR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.1–1.8), serious difficulty seeing (OR=1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.5), or serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions (OR=1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.5) all had greater odds of having stopped a method due to dissatisfaction with the method compared to respondents without these disabilities (Figure 3, Appendix C). After adjusting for the survey wave, sexual activity in the past 12 months, demographic factors, and fecundity, the association with previous method discontinuation due to dissatisfaction was attenuated for people with serious difficulty seeing (aOR = 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0–1.5). The association remained significant and only slightly attenuated for individuals with serious difficulty hearing (aOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0–1.7) and those with serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2–1.6). After adjusting, individuals who reported having serious difficulty performing errands alone due to physical or mental limitations had 1.3 times the odds of having discontinued a method due to dissatisfaction (aOR = 1.3, 95% CI: 1.0–1.6). Respondents with one disability and two or more disabilities both had greater odds of having discontinued a method due to dissatisfaction compared to those with no disability in unadjusted and adjusted models (one disability: OR=1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.5, aOR = 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2–1.6; two or more disabilities: OR=1.3, 95% CI: 1.1–1.6, aOR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.8).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regressions estimating the association between type of disability and number of disabilities with having stopped a contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction and desire to choose a method or different method if cost were not a barrier, among women ages 15–49, National Survey of Family Growth.

Note: CI = Confidence interval. All adjusted models are adjusted for survey wave, age, race/ethnicity, current health insurance, sexual activity with an opposite-sex partner, and fecundity. The odds ratios for each individual disability are relative to respondents without that disability. The odds ratios for the number of disabilities are relative to respondents with no disability. The “stopped a contraceptive method because of dissatisfaction” regression models are among NSFG respondents in survey waves 2011–2019. The “desire to choose a method or a different method if cost were not a barrier” regression models are among NSFG respondents in survey waves 2015–2019.

Desire to use a different method if cost were not a barrier:

In unadjusted models, disabled respondents had 1.6 times the odds of wanting to choose a different method or any method if cost were not a barrier compared to non-disabled respondents (OR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–1.9) (Figure 2), with a predicted probability of 30.1% (95% CI: 26.4–33.8) of disabled individuals identifying that they would choose a different method if the cost were not a barrier compared to 21.1% (95% CI: 19.3–23.0) of non-disabled individuals (Appendix D). The association was slightly attenuated in magnitude and statistical significance after adjusting for survey wave, sexual activity in the past 12 months, demographic factors, and fecundity. After adjustments, disabled respondents had 1.5 times the odds of wanting to start a new method or switch methods if cost were not a barrier compared to non-disabled respondents (95% CI: 1.2–1.8). The predicted probability of wanting to start a new method or switch methods if cost were not a barrier was 28.8% (95% CI: 25.2–32.3) for disabled respondents and 21.5% (95% CI: 19.8–23.2) for non-disabled respondents.

Type of disability and number of disabilities:

Respondents with serious difficulty seeing (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.3–2.4), serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions (OR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–2.0), or serious difficulty doing errands alone due to physical or mental limitations (OR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.2–2.2) all had greater odds of wishing to switch methods or try a method if cost were not a barrier compared to respondents without each of these functional limitations (Figure 3, Appendix E). In adjusted models, these associations hold and are only slightly attenuated (serious difficulty seeing: aOR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.1–2.1; serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions: aOR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.8; serious difficulty doing errands alone due to physical or mental limitations: aOR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.3–2.2). When compared to respondents with no disability, respondents with one disability and two or more disabilities had 1.6 times the odds of wishing to switch methods or start a new method if cost were not a barrier in unadjusted models (OR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–2.0; OR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.3–2.1, respectively). The associations are similar in the models adjusted for survey wave, sexual activity in the past 12 months, demographic factors, and fecundity (one disability: aOR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.2–1.8; two or more disabilities: aOR=1.6, 95% CI: 1.2–2.1).

Discussion

Our study identified differences in contraceptive satisfaction and preferred method choice among US women with and without disabilities aged 15–49 years in nationally representative data from 2011–2019. These issues are directly relevant to the nearly one in five reproductive-age women who were identified as disabled in the NSFG sample. Most disabled NSFG respondents were sexually active, and almost two-thirds wanted a child in the future.

Several of our findings highlight unmet needs for high-quality contraceptive care for people with disabilities. First, in line with findings of earlier studies (Haynes et al., 2018; J. Wu et al., 2018; J. P. Wu et al., 2017), we found that disabled individuals are more likely to use highly effective methods than those without disabilities. Higher female sterilization rates among disabled people drive much of this difference. Research suggests that the use of sterilization is influenced by provider behavior (J. Wu et al., 2019). Social norms related to pregnancy and reproduction may also constrain the choices of disabled individuals when thinking about pregnancy and contraception (Hassan et al., 2023; LaPierre et al., 2017; Tarasoff, 2017; J. Wu et al., 2019).

We found that disabled respondents were less satisfied with a contraceptive method they previously used than their non-disabled peers. We estimated greater odds of stopping a method due to dissatisfaction and desire to use a different contraceptive method if cost were not a barrier among disabled individuals compared to non-disabled individuals; these results held in adjusted models. These findings may indicate that disabled individuals have more difficulty receiving contraceptive methods and care that align with their desires than non-disabled individuals. However, the NSFG did not ask further questions of participants about their preferred contraceptive methods or if other barriers influenced their contraceptive choices. Provider bias, ableism in medical settings, and lack of accessible care may contribute to these differences in method dissatisfaction for disabled individuals, but these factors cannot be directly investigated using NSFG data. Deficiencies in medical training in the U.S. about providing reproductive healthcare for disabled individuals (e.g., IUD placement for people with mobility issues) may contribute to this population not receiving contraceptive care that aligns with their wants and needs (Becker et al., 1997; Hassan et al., 2023; Horner-Johnson et al., 2021). Additionally, future research should consider if disabled individuals face higher contraceptive costs due to care occurring in more costly settings (i.e., hospital versus family planning clinics) and how this may constrain their method choices.

The broader context in which disabled people are navigating reproductive health care is informed by the history of stratified reproduction in the U.S., where the fertility of non-disabled populations is privileged over the fertility of disabled people and others with marginalized identities (e.g., people of color and people with lower incomes). This context may inform the contraceptive method mix observed in this study and differences in method dissatisfaction and preferences (Harris & Wolfe, 2014; J. Wu et al., 2019). Additionally, current patterns of sexual and reproductive health care for disabled people occur in the context of the U.S.’s history of eugenics and contraceptive experimentation on marginalized populations and the ongoing devaluing of their reproduction and reproductive autonomy (National Partnership for Women & Families, 2021; Greenwood et al., 2014; Hassan et al., 2023; Lee, n.d.; A. Stern, 2020; A. M. Stern, 2005). These experiences in the healthcare system also likely lead to delaying needed reproductive healthcare and constraining the reproductive choices of disabled individuals. These delays and constraints likely affect decision-making related to pregnancy and contraception and lead to decisions that are not aligned with the individuals’ desires. These difficulties with accessing wanted and needed reproductive health care are even more heightened for disabled people after the Dobbs decision led to curtailed abortion access for disabled people living in restrictive abortion states (Hassan et al., 2022; Powell, 2023).

Our study is limited by several factors related to the data source. The NSFG likely underestimated the prevalence of disabilities in the general population because the survey does not include individuals who are institutionalized (National Center for Health Statistics, 2022). Additionally, the design and implementation of the NSFG interviews required the ability to hear, speak, and type on a laptop; no specific accommodations are available. Future designs of the NSFG should consider incorporating community engagement to gather insights on adaptability and potential measures. The disability items used in the 2011–2019 NSFG were developed more than a decade ago and should be vetted again in the current environment with disabled individuals (Livermore et al., 2011). The standardized approach used by the NSFG to measure disability status employs a functional perspective, encompassing limitations in hearing, vision, cognition, mobility, self-care, and independent living. Respondents with these functional limitations may not self-identify as disabled.

Additionally, not all individuals who identify as having a disability will be included in these functional measures (Hall et al., 2022). For example, individuals with chronic health conditions that may influence contraceptive decisions and use patterns (e.g., conditions with estrogen contraindications or that pose elevated risks for adverse pregnancy and infant outcomes) may not have functional limitations across the six measured domains, effectively leading to underreporting of disability. Furthermore, disability can change over time, and the current measure does not ask about temporal changes in functional limitations (e.g., cyclical symptoms of endometriosis). Another limitation is that cost is the only barrier to preferred method use mentioned in the questions, yet emerging research indicates other individual, interpersonal, and structural influences on preferred method use (Burke & Lindberg, 2024; Gomez et al., 2024). An investigation into the new disability measures used in the 2022–2023 NSFG survey round is needed. Asking more questions about method preferences and barriers in future NSFG waves would allow for a more nuanced and complete investigation of the challenges of receiving contraceptive methods and care for disabled individuals.

Implications for Practice and Policy

Our results suggest that being disabled was associated with having discontinued a contraceptive method due to dissatisfaction and wanting to have made a different method choice if cost were not a barrier. These findings highlight that disabled individuals are likely experiencing barriers to getting wanted or needed reproductive healthcare, in addition to not receiving adequate information about their contraceptive methods when counseled. More research is needed to understand how clinical care can be improved and provided to this population, with a focus on their reproductive desires and needs. Provider training and resources about specific counseling considerations for disabled individuals, as well as improvements in accessibility at reproductive health clinics, would improve counseling and the dissemination of contraceptive information to this population. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recent guidelines on access to services for people with disabilities can be a central resource for providers and clinics wishing to improve care delivery to this population (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 2025).

Future research examining contraceptive care outcomes and patient-reported experiences of contraceptive use may benefit from focusing on a smaller sample of disabled individuals, where more in-depth and retrospective or prospective information can be collected from the population. These study designs would be advantageous for exploring questions of contraceptive care quality and person-centeredness from a causal framework. Researchers in the field of reproductive healthcare delivery to people with disabilities and chronic conditions have encouraged the use of a justice-based and intersectional approach (J. Wu et al., 2019). The next step for research using the NSFG would be to incorporate intersectionality analytical methods to understand how people with multiple marginalized identities, including disability, may have unique contraceptive care and use patterns. Continued surveillance using nationally representative surveys that accurately measure disability is vital for understanding ongoing patterns in contraceptive access inequities and quality issues for the disabled population (Landes et al., 2023; Swenor, 2021). Disabled individuals will continue to experience greater dissatisfaction with their contraceptive methods and barriers to accessing preferred methods without intentional interventions to improve the delivery of these services.

Supplementary Material

Appendix Tables

Acknowledgments:

Zoe Pleasure had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Funding statement:

Zoe Pleasure was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number F31HD114364. Partial support for this research came from a Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development research infrastructure grant, P2C HD042828, to the Center for Studies in Demography & Ecology at the University of Washington. Additional support for this research came from support to CSDE from the College of Arts & Sciences, the UW Provost, eSciences Institute, the Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, College of Built Environment, School of Public Health, the Foster School of Business, and the School of Social Work. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Biographies

Zoe Pleasure, MPH, is a doctoral candidate in the University of Washington’s Department of Health Systems & Population Health. She is a health services researcher focusing on reproductive health information-seeking behaviors and the equitable delivery of contraception and abortion care.

Laura Lindberg, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Urban-Global Public Health at the Rutgers School of Public Health. As a social demographer, she focuses on addressing systematic and longstanding disparities in sexual and reproductive health in the United States.

Footnotes

Author statement: Zoe Pleasure: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization; Laura Lindberg: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing, Supervision

1

Respondents aged 45–49 were added in survey waves 2015–2017 and 2017–2019.

2

Our understanding is that respondents’ self-identify as female or male and then are administered the corresponding survey. This may not align with sex assigned at birth for all respondents.

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

References

  1. Alhusen JL, Bloom T, Laughon K, Behan L, & Hughes RB (2021). Perceptions of barriers to effective family planning services among women with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 14(3), 101055. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2020.101055 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2025). Access to Obstetric and Gynecologic Care for Patients With Disabilities. [Committee Statement]. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-statement/articles/2025/04/access-to-obstetric-and-gynecologic-care-for-patients-with-disabilities [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (no date). Patient-Centered Contraceptive Counseling. Retrieved March 2, 2023, from https://www.acog.org/en/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-statement/articles/2022/02/patient-centered-contraceptive-counseling
  4. Becker H, Stuifbergen A, & Tinkle M. (1997). Reproductive health care experiences of women with physical disabilities: A qualitative study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 78(12, Supplement 5), S26–S33. 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90218-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Biggs MA, Schroeder R, Casebolt MT, Laureano BI, Wilson-Beattie RL, Ralph LJ, Kaller S, Adler A, & Gichane MW (2023). Access to Reproductive Health Services Among People With Disabilities. JAMA Network Open, 6(11), e2344877. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.44877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Burke KL, & Lindberg LD (2024). Gender, Power, and Nonpreferred Contraceptive Use in the United States: Results from a National Survey. Socius, 10, 23780231241282641. 10.1177/23780231241282641 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burke KL, & Potter JE (2023). Meeting Preferences for Specific Contraceptive Methods: An Overdue Indicator. Studies in Family Planning, 54(1), 281–300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke KL., Potter JE., & White K. (2020). Unsatisfied contraceptive preferences due to cost among women in the United States. Contraception: X, 2, 100032. 10.1016/j.conx.2020.100032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. CDC. (2019, November 26). Disability and Health—Disability Data | CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/datasets.html [Google Scholar]
  10. Dehlendorf C, Akers AY, Borrero S, Callegari LS, Cadena D, Gomez AM, Hart J, Jimenez L, Kuppermann M, Levy B, Lu MC, Malin K, Simpson M, Verbiest S, Yeung M, & Crear-Perry J. (2021). Evolving the Preconception Health Framework. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 137(2), 234–239. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004255 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gomez AM, Bennett AH, Arcara J, Stern L, Bardwell J, Cadena D, Chaudhri A, Davis L, Dehlendorf C, Frederiksen B, Labiran C, McDonald-Mosley R, Rice WS, Stein TB, Valladares ES, Kavanaugh ML, & Marshall C. (2024). Estimates of use of preferred contraceptive method in the United States: A population-based study. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, 30. 10.1016/j.lana.2023.100662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Greenwood NW, Ferrari B, Bhakta S, Ostrach B, & Wilkinson J. (2014). Experiences, beliefs and needs of women with intellectual disabilities in accessing their reproductive rights. Contraception, 90(3), 348–349. 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.05.193 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hall JP., Kurth NK., Ipsen C., Myers A., & Goddard K. (2022). Comparing Measures Of Functional Difficulty With Self-Identified Disability: Implications For Health Policy. Health Affairs, 41(10), 1433–1441. 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00395 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Harris LH, & Wolfe T. (2014). Stratified reproduction, family planning care and the double edge of history. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26(6), 539–544. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hassan A, Hirz AE, Yates L, & Hing AK (2023). Rebuilding a Reproductive Future Informed by Disability and Reproductive Justice. Women’s Health Issues. 10.1016/j.whi.2023.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Hassan A, Yates L, Hing AK, Hirz AE, & Hardeman R. (2022). Dobbs and disability: Implications of abortion restrictions for people with chronic health conditions. Health Services Research, n/a(n/a). 10.1111/1475-6773.14108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Haynes RM, Boulet SL, Fox MH, Carroll DD, Courtney-Long E, & Warner L. (2018). Contraceptive use at last intercourse among reproductive-aged women with disabilities: An analysis of population-based data from seven states. Contraception, 97(6), 538–545. 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.12.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. He K, Dalton VK, Zochowski MK, & Hall KS (2017). Women’s Contraceptive Preference-Use Mismatch. Journal of Women’s Health, 26(6), 692–701. 10.1089/jwh.2016.5807 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Horner-Johnson W, Dissanayake M, Marshall N, & Snowden JM (2022). Perinatal Health Risks And Outcomes Among US Women With Self-Reported Disability, 2011–19. Health Affairs, 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00497. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00497 [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Horner-Johnson W., Dissanayake M., Wu JP., Caughey AB., & Darney BG. (2020). Pregnancy Intendedness by Maternal Disability Status and Type in the United States. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 52(1), 31–38. 10.1363/psrh.12130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Horner-Johnson W, Klein KA, Campbell J, & Guise J-M (2021). Experiences of Women With Disabilities in Accessing and Receiving Contraceptive Care. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing, 50(6), 732–741. 10.1016/j.jogn.2021.07.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Kavanaugh ML, Pliskin E, & Hussain R. (2022). Associations between unfulfilled contraceptive preferences due to cost and low-income patients’ access to and experiences of contraceptive care in the United States, 2015–2019. Contraception: X, 4, 100076. 10.1016/j.conx.2022.100076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Landes SD, Swenor BK, & Vaitsiakhovich N. (2023). Counting disability in the National Health Interview Survey and its consequence: Comparing the American Community Survey to the Washington Group disability measures. Disability and Health Journal, 101553. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2023.101553 [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. LaPierre TA, Zimmerman MK, & Hall JP (2017). “Paying the price to get there”: Motherhood and the dynamics of pregnancy deliberations among women with disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 419–425. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.02.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee N. (n.d.). As a disabled woman, my abortion wasn’t questioned—But my pregnancy was. Quartz. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from https://qz.com/1710043/being-disabled-my-abortion-wasnt-questioned-but-my-pregnancy-was/
  26. Livermore G, Whalen D, Prenovitz S, Aggarwal R, & Bardos M. (2011). Disability Data in National Surveys. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Office of Disability, Aging and Long-Term Care Policy. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lundberg DJ, & Chen JA (2024). Structural ableism in public health and healthcare: A definition and conceptual framework. The Lancet Regional Health – Americas, 30. 10.1016/j.lana.2023.100650 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mosher W, Bloom T, Hughes R, Horton L, Mojtabai R, & Alhusen JL (2017). Disparities in receipt of family planning services by disability status: New estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 394–399. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.03.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. National Center for Health Statistics. (2020). Public-Use Data File Documentation 2017–2019 User’s Guide: National Survey of Family Growth. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG-2017-2019-UG-MainText-508.pdf
  30. National Center for Health Statistics. (2022). About the National Survey of Family Growth. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/about_nsfg.htm
  31. National Center for Health Statistics. (no date). 2017–2019 National Survey of Family Growth Female Respondent File Recode Specifications. Retrieved May 7, 2025, from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nsfg/NSFG-2017-2019-UG-App3a-FemRespRecodeSpecs-508.pdf
  32. National Partnership for Women & Families. (2021). Access, Autonomy, and Dignity: Contraception for People with Disabilities. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/health-care/repro/repro-disability-contraception.pdf
  33. Powell RM (2023). Reproductive justice for disabled people post-Dobbs: A call-to-action for researchers. Disability and Health Journal, 101572. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2023.101572 [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. StataCorp. (2023). Stata Statistical Software: Release 18 [Computer software]. StataCorp LLC. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stern A. (2020). Forced sterilization policies in the US targeted minorities and those with disabilities – and lasted into the 21st century. https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/forced-sterilization-policies-us-targeted-minorities-and-those-disabilities-and-lasted-21st
  36. Stern AM (2005). STERILIZED in the Name of Public Health. American Journal of Public Health, 95(7), 1128–1138. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.041608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Swenor BK (2021). Including disability in all health equity efforts: An urgent call to action. The Lancet Public Health, 6(6), e359–e360. 10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00115-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Tarasoff LA (2017). “We don’t know. We’ve never had anybody like you before”: Barriers to perinatal care for women with physical disabilities. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 426–433. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2017.03.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Wu J., Braunschweig Y., Harris LH., Horner-Johnson W., Ernst SD., & Stevens B. (2019). Looking back while moving forward: A justice-based, intersectional approach to research on contraception and disability. Contraception, 99(5), 267–271. 10.1016/j.contraception.2019.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Wu JP, McKee MM, Mckee KS, Meade MA, Plegue M, & Sen A. (2017). Female sterilization is more common among women with physical and/or sensory disabilities than women without disabilities in the United States. Disability and Health Journal, 10(3), 400–405. 10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.12.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wu J, Zhang J, Mitra M, Parish SL, & Minama Reddy GK (2018). Provision of Moderately and Highly Effective Reversible Contraception to Insured Women With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 132(3), 565–574. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix Tables
NIHMS2095435-supplement-Appendix_Tables.xlsx (35.8KB, xlsx)

RESOURCES