Table 3.

Association of Hypothesized Factors with the Provision of Routine Contraceptive Counseling

	ORa	Lower CI	Upper CI	p-value
Study population characteristics
Female vs. male	4.3	1.9	9.8	0.0004
Faculty vs. resident	2.3	1.1	4.9	0.0337
Absence of potential barriers
Perceived adequate time vs. inadequate time	3.1	1.3	7.2	0.0090
Perceived adequate knowledge vs. inadequate knowledge	3.9	1.7	8.9	0.0015
≥20% of practice devoted to women vs. <20%	2.4	1.1	5.4	0.0271
≥10% of practice devoted to women vs. <10%	1.0	0.4	2.2	0.8937
Routinely/often take sexual history vs. not	11.6	3.3	40.0	0.0001
Misconception absent vs. present	1.5	0.6	3.3	0.3802
Self-efficacy (high vs. low)	6.5	1.5	29.0	0.0135
Religious or ethnic culture that opposes contraception absent vs. present	1.0	0.3	3.3	0.9823
Plans to work in outpatient setting (residents only) vs. nonoutpatient setting	N/Ab			N/A
Plans to continue working in outpatient setting for at least the next 5 years (faculty only) vs. not	N/Ac			N/A
Perceived importance (dichotomize high vs. low)	N/Ad			N/A
Potential facilitators
Prior women's health elective (faculty and residents) yes vs. no	2.5	1.1	5.8	0.0276
Contraceptive-related CME in the past 5 years (faculty only) yes vs. no	1.6	0.5	4.6	0.4248
Prior contraceptive counseling lectures (residents only) yes vs. no	N/Ae			N/A

^aOR of providing contraceptive counseling routinely, as compared to often, sometimes, or never (≥80% vs. <80%).

^bOR estimate not reliable: ≤5 residents with nonoutpatient plans reported routine counseling (≥80% of preventive visits).

^cOR not estimable: Only two faculty were not planning to continue practice in an outpatient setting.

^dOR not estimable: 0 providers who do not perceive contraceptive counseling as important (out of 4) reported routine counseling (≥80% of preventive visits).

^eOR estimate not reliable: <5 participants with no prior contraceptive counseling lectures provided routine counseling (≥80% of preventive visits).

CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.