. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.

Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct 27;218(2):234.e1–234.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.10.020

Table 3.

Odds of CHC use and method type among women Veterans at risk of unintended pregnancy

Women with contraindications to CHC vs. women without	Unadjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)	Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)^a
Logistic Regression Model^b

No CHC use	REF	REF
CHC use	0.46 (0.32–0.65)	0.54 (0.37–0.79)

Multinomial Regression Model^c

CHC use	REF	REF
Non-CHC Prescription	2.19 (1.52–3.15)	1.74 (1.17–2.60)
Non-Prescription	1.84 (1.17–2.88)	1.96 (1.19–3.22)
No Method	2.71 (1.69–4.35)	2.29 (1.35–3.89)

CHC, combined hormonal contraception

Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education, parity, insurance status (VA only or dual), and VA PCP gender. n=1152 for adjusted models due to missing data: provider gender (n=15), insurance (n=1), marital status (n=1).

Logistic regression model with outcome CHC use vs. no CHC use.

Multinomial regression model with 4 levels of contraceptive use: 1) CHC methods: pill, patch, ring (reference group); 2) Non-CHC prescription methods: IUD, implant, injection, male or female sterilization; 3) Non-prescription methods: barrier methods, fertility-awareness, withdrawal; 4) No method.