Table 2.
Logistic Regression Models of Condom Use by Contraceptive Type Among Sexually Active Female High School Students Using LARC or Moderately Effective Methods Using Data From the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Surveya
| Condom Use | ||
|---|---|---|
| Contraceptive Type | PR (95% CI) (n = 617) |
aPR (95% CI)b (n = 609) |
| LARC vs oral contraceptives | ||
| LARC use | 0.44 (0.23-0.85) | 0.42 (0.21-0.84) |
| Oral contraceptive use | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
| Depo-Provera, patch, or ring use | 0.71 (0.48-1.05) | 0.73 (0.48-1.11) |
| LARC vs Depo-Provera, patch, or ring | ||
| LARC use | 0.61 (0.29-1.30) | 0.57 (0.26-1.25) |
| Oral contraceptive use | 1.40 (0.95-2.07) | 1.37 (0.90-2.08) |
| Depo-Provera, patch, or ring use | 1 [Reference] | 1 [Reference] |
Abbreviations: aPR, adjusted prevalence ratio; LARC, long-acting reversible contraception; PR, prevalence ratio.
a
The same models were run twice to make comparisons with 2 different reference groups: (1) oral contraceptive users, and (2) Depo-Provera, patch, or ring users. The analytic samples are unweighted numbers.
b
Adjusted models included self-reported grade and race/ethnicity.