Table 3.

Odds of method use by survey year among women at potential risk of an unintended pregnancy^*: results from multinomial logistic regression model and method specific logistic regression

	2005 vs 2000	2010 vs 2000	2010 vs 2005
	Adjusted OR 95% CI	Adjusted OR 95% CI	Adjusted OR 95% CI
Multinomial regression model
No contraception (unmet need)	1	1	1
Natural and Barrier methods	0.6* [0.4–0.8]	1.1 [0.8–1.6]	2.0* [1.5–2.6]
User dependent Hormonal methods	0.7* [0.6–1.0]	0.9 [0.6–1.2]	1.2 [0.9–1.5]
Long acting reversible methods	0.9 [0.6–1.1]	1.2 [0.9–1.7]	1.4* [1.1–1.8]
Sterilization	1.4 [0.8–2.5]	3.9* [2.2–6.9]	2.8* [1.9–4.1]
Separate Logistic regression models
No contraception (unmet need) versus other	1.3* [1.0–1.7]	1.0 [0.7–1.3]	0.7* [0.6–0.9]
Natural and barrier methods versus other	0.7* [0.6–0.8]	1.2* [1.0–1.3]	1.6* [1.4–1.8]
User dependent Hormonal methods versus other	1.0 [0.9–1.1]	0.7* [0.6–0.8]	0.7* [0.6–0.8]
Long acting reversible methods versus other	1.2* [1.1–1.4]	1.3* [1.1–1.5]	1.0 [0.9–1.1]
Sterilization versus other	2.0* [1.3–3.2]	4.0* [2.5–6.5]	2.1* [1.5–2.8]

^*women were not at risk of an unintended pregnancy if they were sterile or their partner was sterile; if they were pregnant or trying to conceive, if they had just given birth or were breastfeeding or if they had no heterosexual activity in the last 12 months

Results are adjusted for age, parity, cohabitation status, level of education, professional situation, abortion history, smoking status, and obesity

^*p<0.05