Long-acting reversible contraception access
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Evidence Ratings
Scientifically Supported: Strategies with this rating are most likely to make a difference. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently positive results.
Some Evidence: Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Expert Opinion: Strategies with this rating are recommended by credible, impartial experts but have limited research documenting effects; further research, often with stronger designs, is needed to confirm effects.
Insufficient Evidence: Strategies with this rating have limited research documenting effects. These strategies need further research, often with stronger designs, to confirm effects.
Mixed Evidence: Strategies with this rating have been tested more than once and results are inconsistent or trend negative; further research is needed to confirm effects.
Evidence of Ineffectiveness: Strategies with this rating are not good investments. These strategies have been tested in many robust studies with consistently negative and sometimes harmful results. Learn more about our methods
Strategies with this rating are likely to work, but further research is needed to confirm effects. These strategies have been tested more than once and results trend positive overall.
Disparity Ratings
Potential to decrease disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Potential for mixed impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating could increase and decrease disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence or expert opinion.
Potential to increase disparities: Strategies with this rating have the potential to increase or exacerbate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Inconclusive impact on disparities: Strategies with this rating do not have enough evidence to assess potential impact on disparities.
Strategies with this rating have the potential to decrease or eliminate disparities between subgroups. Rating is suggested by evidence, expert opinion or strategy design.
Health factors shape the health of individuals and communities. Everything from our education to our environments impacts our health. Modifying these clinical, behavioral, social, economic, and environmental factors can influence how long and how well people live, now and in the future.
Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) include intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants that can prevent pregnancy for 3 to 10 years and can be removed at a woman’s discretion. LARCs are over 99% effective, a higher effectiveness rate than other birth control options1, and can be used by those who have previously given birth2. Despite very few medical contraindications to LARC use3, a variety of barriers at the patient, provider, and systems level have limited access to and uptake of LARCs. LARCs can be made accessible through broad-based efforts to decrease patient costs, such as ACA provisions requiring full coverage of birth control options, and ensuring that LARCs are available at low or no cost through Title X family planning sites and other sources of care. Efforts to increase access to LARCs can include provision of comprehensive contraceptive counseling on the full range of birth control options (including LARC) for all interested patients, provider training on LARC insertion and removal, and consistent availability of LARCs at local hospitals and clinics. Accessibility of LARCs could also be improved by elimination of medically unnecessary steps between request and insertion, including two visit protocols and STI testing prior to the day of insertion4. LARCs can be inserted and removed by many types of clinicians in a range of clinical settings, including primary care and non-traditional locations such as school-based health centers or mobile vans5.
In the U.S. LARC usage has increased, and permanent methods and short-acting reversible contraceptive use have decreased, since 20026.
We at times use “women” when referring to people who may become pregnant and therefore make use of LARCs. We acknowledge that not all people who use LARCs identify as women, however current research on LARCs has primarily focused on those who do.
What could this strategy improve?
Expected Benefits
Our evidence rating is based on the likelihood of achieving these outcomes:
Increased use of contraception
Reduced teen pregnancy
Reduced unintended pregnancy
Potential Benefits
Our evidence rating is not based on these outcomes, but these benefits may also be possible:
Decreased abortions
What does the research say about effectiveness?
There is some evidence that increasing access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) through efforts such as comprehensive contraceptive counseling and cost reduction increases uptake of LARCs and reduces unintended pregnancies7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. LARCs are recommended as a safe and effective first-line choice of birth control for teens2, 15 and women2. However, additional evidence is needed to confirm the effects of efforts to increase access to LARCs while maintaining contraceptive choice for all patients, and to determine which intervention components have the greatest effect.
Avoiding coercion. To avoid reproductive coercion, experts recommend programs working to ensure LARC access provide comprehensive counseling on all contraceptive methods, and to all patients, rather than promoting LARC use within specific groups16, 17, as well as ensuring access to LARC removal when individuals choose, without barriers from provider resistance or insurance coverage16, 18. Additionally, vouchers only redeemable for LARCs limit patient choice, so cost coverage should be available for all contraceptive options16. Adolescents may be subject to greater pressure to use LARCs, or barriers to LARC device removal19. Clinicians who provide contraception to adolescents should have overall knowledge about LARCs and their management, as well as issues specific to adolescents related to counseling, initiation, and continuation19, 20.
Counseling, training, and costs. Overall, counseling, provider training, and cost support, especially in combination, appear to increase LARC use21. Interventions that include both comprehensive contraceptive counseling and provision of no cost or discounted contraception, including LARCs, can increase uptake of LARCs9, 14, 22, 23 and reduce unintended pregnancy among teens9, 11, 14, 24, 25 and adults9, 14; teen births appear to decline the most in counties with the highest rates of poverty11. LARC use appears to increase when out-of-pocket expenses are low26, 27, 28 or eliminated10. For example, for patients whose visits are not likely to be covered by insurance, counseling alone increases LARC selection but not initiation12, 28; initiation is associated with insurance coverage or ability to afford out-of-pocket costs28. In general, cost coverage increases access to and use of contraceptives, especially LARCs, among women with lower incomes7; increasing funding for family planning services appears to do so as well13. Studies in multiple states find that cost coverage for LARCs13, and counseling with cost coverage, appear to reduce abortion rates14, 24, 25.
Adolescents and young adults. Educating health care providers about LARCs, as well as adults who work with teens in non-medical community settings, may increase LARC use among high school students29. On-site availability of LARCs at school-based health centers may increase LARC use among interested adolescents who are sexually active30. A Colorado-based multi-component intervention for pediatric and family practice clinicians, which included both physician education and integrating a LARC toolkit into the electronic health record system, increased LARC placement for adolescents31. Interventions delivering contraceptive counseling via motivational interviewing to adolescent mothers also appear to increase LARC use32, 33. Separating reimbursement for immediate post-partum LARC placement from birth coverage for Medicaid patients may also increase LARC use among adolescents34.
Availability. Offering same-day placement of LARCs when women request them at a clinic visit can increase LARC initiation35, as can offering immediate post-partum insertion36; both are recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)37.
Technology. Studies of social media campaigns or contraceptive education videos suggest they may increase interest in the use of IUDs38, 39 but may have no impact on LARC uptake40, 41, though adding a social media component to contraceptive counseling may increase patients’ knowledge of contraceptives and use of LARCs42.
Barriers. Lack of knowledge and cost for patients, providers, and the health care system can be barriers to individuals’ LARC use43. Lack of training among providers and the upfront costs of LARC devices for clinics may be particular challenges in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) that are small, located in rural areas, or have limited family planning funding44. Some states’ Medicaid policies do not reimburse for provider insertion fees when women choose immediate postpartum LARC placement, creating a barrier to access45, and Catholic hospitals also may not comply fully with this Medicaid payment policy8. Adolescents in all types of communities face these and additional barriers, such as insurance coverage gaps and out-of-pocket expenses, parental consent requirements and confidentiality issues, provider discomfort and misconceptions about the clinical appropriateness of youth use, and adolescents’ own lack of information and misconceptions about LARCs46, 47, 48, 49, 50. Some states prohibit providing contraceptives to individuals under 18 without parental consent30. LARCs can be a desirable discreet contraceptive method for individuals experiencing intimate partner violence, which can include reproductive coercion and control51.
Sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) risk. Experts note that LARC users are less likely to use condoms than those using less effective contraceptives, possibly because there is less need for back up pregnancy protection or because users may be more likely to have consistent partners, and so experts recommend that sexual health education materials and counseling continue to emphasize condom use as effective STI prevention, in combination with access to LARCs52.
Cost. LARCs are highly cost-effective5, 49, and more cost-effective than other methods of contraception such as condoms and birth control pills53.
How could this strategy advance health equity? This strategy is rated potential to decrease disparities: suggested by expert opinion.
Initiatives to increase access to long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are a suggested strategy to decrease persistent disparities in access to LARCs and in unintended pregnancy between people who have lower incomes or are from racialized backgrounds and those who have higher incomes or are white4, 8, 46. Experts note, however, that unintended pregnancies may not be undesired, and that increased access to LARCs alone will not address the structural factors determining individuals’ contraceptive use64.
For women enrolled in Medicaid, offering same-day LARC placement when requested at a clinic visit can increase use of LARCs35. A study in a Vermont clinic illustrates the barriers presented by a two-visit protocol, as women with Medicaid were less likely to have LARCs inserted than women with private insurance65. Training providers and funding LARC provision at Title X clinics in Colorado appeared to reduce teen birth rates the most in areas with higher rates of poverty11. Cost coverage can increase use of contraceptives, especially LARCs, among women with lower incomes, such as those seeking Title X services7; increasing funding for family planning services for women with low incomes may also increase use of LARCs13.
Separating reimbursement for immediate postpartum LARC insertion from global maternity payments can increase use of LARCs among women enrolled in Medicaid66 and for women who are Black8. Experts suggest that offering immediate postpartum LARC placement may decrease disparities in access experienced by women who are Black, by reducing barriers around scheduling, transportation, childcare, and Medicaid eligibility time-out. However, women who are Black may experience greater pressure to choose LARCs and implicit bias and coercion remain a problem in clinical settings8.
Best practices for implementing the Medicaid payment policy for LARCs include using a reproductive justice framework and patient-centered approach, with comprehensive counseling for patients about all their contraceptive options to ensure the right match for their needs, desires, and goals8. Experts also recommend that providers directly acknowledge historic reproductive injustices related to contraceptives, to address patients’ possible concerns and to facilitate openness in the contraceptive choice process64.
What is the relevant historical background?
Individuals have used contraceptive methods for thousands of years67. IUDs were invented in the early 1900s and became widely used in the late 1950s, but fell out of favor when, in 1974, one brand of IUD was linked to pelvic inflammatory disease and related deaths. While this IUD was removed from the market and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gained greater authority to approve and ban medical devices in 1976, public distrust of IUDs persisted for decades67 and FDA oversight remains less stringent than for pharmaceutical drugs68. Other LARCs (implants and injections) were FDA-approved in the early 1990s69.
Contraceptive development and promotion in the U.S. has included reproductive rights abuses, both in the U.S. and perpetuated by the U.S. abroad69. U.S. state laws in the early 1900s allowed officials to order individuals be sterilized against their will, primarily women who were poor, Black, or Native American; such laws passed in thirty states by 1929 and coincided with global eugenics movements64, 69. As of the 1990s, officials continued to coerce individuals from marginalized or immigrant backgrounds, those with lower incomes, and those who are disabled, into using LARCs, violating their reproductive rights. Multiple states, including North Carolina, Virginia, and California, have established programs to compensate individuals who experienced forced sterilization, such as those in state-run hospitals, institutions, and correctional facilities69, 70.
Laws in the U.S. have historically criminalized activities like mailing contraceptives and abortifacients, created barriers to researching and developing contraceptives (e.g., the birth control pill), and made it illegal for unmarried women to access birth control69. Teen pregnancy rates have been declining in the U.S. since 1991, though rates are still higher than in other high income nations, and racial and geographic disparities persist71. In rural communities, lack of sexual and reproductive health education and services increases risks for adolescent pregnancy72. Unwanted pregnancies could be terminated in all 50 states prior to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision which made abortion illegal in almost half of U.S. states73. This change in law, and other increased barriers to abortion, may increase existing disparities in maternal and infant health74 as more unwanted pregnancies are carried to term73.
Global initiatives, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, advocate for individuals to access their preferred contraceptive methods as part of their human rights. Such initiatives note the health and other related benefits, such as education and expanded opportunities for women, that come with access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services75. Additionally, women’s sexual functioning and satisfaction with contraception, including the possibility that contraceptives may enhance sexual experience, continues to be understudied64.
Equity Considerations
- Is reproductive health care available in your community? Are all individuals able to access and afford their preferred contraceptive methods?
- Are local health care providers trained in patient-centered care, and in LARC education, insertion, and removal?
- Does state law allow individuals under 18 to access contraception, or is parental consent required?
Implementation Examples
As of 2016, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) use increased to about 17.8% of contraceptive users, with most using IUDs, while short-acting reversible contraception (SARC) use decreased, from 31.8% to 27.7%54. From 2008 to 2013, inpatient postpartum LARC insertion also increased55. Using a LARC method is associated with having given birth once or more (parity), while SARC method use is associated with having never given birth (nulliparity)54.
There are various efforts at local, state, and federal levels to increase access to LARCs. The Contraceptive Choice Center (formerly the CHOICE project) in St. Louis (CHOICE) is an example of a local initiative, and efforts in Colorado and Iowa reflect partnerships between state governments and private donors13, 56, 57. The Reproductive Health Access Project offers educational materials for clinicians and patients58. The Veteran Health Administration provides reproductive health services to women veterans, including comprehensive birth control options59.
The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) reduced or eliminated the cost of long-acting reversible contraceptives for many women13, 14, 22, 60, 61. However, states can restrict access to LARCs through insurance regulations and Medicaid eligibility requirements5. State Medicaid payment policies vary and do not always address all aspects of care62 though most states have published guidance for Medicaid reimbursement for postpartum LARCs63.
Implementation Resources
‡ Resources with a focus on equity.
ACOG-LARC 2017 - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2017). Long-acting reversible contraception: Implants and intrauterine devices. Practice Bulletin No. 186. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 130, e251–269.
AFY-LARC - Young women and long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Advocates for Youth (AFY).
CDC-Contraception - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Contraception and birth control methods.
Russo 2013a - Russo JA, Miller E, Gold MA. Myths and misconceptions about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S14-S21.
Footnotes
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 CDC-Contraception - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Contraception and birth control methods.
2 ACOG-LARC 2017 - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2017). Long-acting reversible contraception: Implants and intrauterine devices. Practice Bulletin No. 186. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 130, e251–269.
3 CDC-MEC 2016 - Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, et al. U.S. medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). 2016;65(3):1-104.
4 Parks 2016 - Parks C, Peipert JF. Eliminating health disparities in unintended pregnancy with long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;214(6):681-688.
5 Batra 2015 - Batra P, Bird CE. Policy barriers to best practices: The impact of restrictive state regulations on access to long-acting reversible contraceptives. Women’s Health Issues. 2015;25(6):612-615.
6 Guttmacher-Contraceptive 2021 - Guttmacher Institute. (2021, May). Contraceptive use in the United States by method [Fact sheet].
7 NBER-Bailey 2023 - Bailey, M., Lang, V. W., Prettyman, A., Vrioni, I., Bart, L., Eisenberg, D., Fomby, P., Barber, J., & Dalton, V. (2023). How costs limit contraceptive use among low-income women in the U.S.: A randomized control trial (No. w31397; p. w31397). National Bureau of Economic Research.
8 Quinlan 2023 - Quinlan, T. A. G., Lindrooth, R. C., Guiahi, M., McManus, B. M., & Mays, G. P. (2023). Medicaid payment for postpartum long-acting reversible contraception prompts more equitable use: Study examines the impact of medicaid payments on the use of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Health Affairs, 42(5), 665–673.
9 NBER-Kelly 2019 - Kelly AM, Lindo JM, Packham A. The power of the IUD: Effects of expanding access to contraception through Title X clinics. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). 2019: Working Paper 25656.
10 Goyal 2017 - Goyal V, Canfield C, Aiken ARA, et al. Postabortion contraceptive use and continuation when long-acting reversible contraception is free. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;129(4):655-662.
11 Lindo 2017 - Lindo JM, Packham A. How much can expanding access to long-acting reversible contraceptives reduce teen birth rates? American Economic Journal: Economic Policy. 2017;9(3):348–376.
12 Harper 2015 - Harper CC, Rocca CH, Thompson KM, et al. Reductions in pregnancy rates in the USA with long-acting reversible contraception: A cluster randomised trial. The Lancet. 2015;386(9993):562-568.
13 Biggs 2015 - Biggs MA, Rocca CH, Brindis CD, Hirsch H, Grossman D. Did increasing use of highly effective contraception contribute to declining abortions in Iowa? Contraception. 2015;91(2):167-173.
14 Ricketts 2014 - Ricketts S, Klingler G, Schwalberg R. Game change in Colorado: Widespread use of long-acting reversible contraceptives and rapid decline in births among young, low-income women. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2014;46(3):125-132.
15 AAP-Contraception 2014 - American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on Adolescence. Contraception for adolescents. Pediatrics. 2014;134(4):e1244-e1256.
16 NWHN 2024 - National Women’s Health Network (NWHN). (2024). Long-acting reversible contraception statement of principles.
17 Gomez 2015 - Gomez AM, Fuentes L, Allina A. Women or LARC first? Reproductive autonomy and the promotion of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2015;46(3):171–175.
18 Strasser 2017 - Strasser J, Borkowski L, Couillard M, et al. Access to removal of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods is an essential component of high-quality contraceptive care. Women’s Health Issues. 2017;27(3):253–255.
19 Hendrick 2020 - Hendrick, C. E., Cone, J. N., Cirullo, J., & Maslowsky, J. (2020). Determinants of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) initial and continued use among adolescents in the United States. Adolescent Research Review, 5(3), 243–279.
20 Bahar 2020 - Bahar, Y. Z., & Gold, M. A. (2020). Providing long-acting reversible contraception to adolescents: A review. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology, 63(3), 561–573.
21 Phillips-Bell 2023 - Phillips-Bell, G., Roque, M., & Romero, L. (2023). Mapping long-acting reversible contraceptive interventions to the social ecological model: A scoping review. Women’s Health Issues, 33(5), 497–507.
22 Birgisson 2015 - Birgisson NE, Zhao Q, Secura GM, Madden T, Peipert JF. Preventing unintended pregnancy: The Contraceptive CHOICE Project in review. Journal of Women’s Health. 2015;24(5):349-353.
23 Goldthwaite 2015 - Goldthwaite LM, Duca L, Johnson RK, Ostendorf D, Sheeder J. Adverse birth outcomes in Colorado: Assessing the impact of a statewide initiative to prevent unintended pregnancy. American Journal of Public Health. 2015;105(9):e60-e66.
24 Secura 2014 - Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C, et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2014;371(14):1316-1323.
25 Peipert 2012 - Peipert JF, Madden T, Allsworth JE, Secura GM. Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012;120(6):1291-1297.
26 Snyder 2018a - Snyder AH, Weisman CS, Liu G, et al. The impact of the affordable care act on contraceptive use and costs among privately insured women. Women’s Health Issues. 2018;28(3):219–223.
27 Broecker 2016 - Broecker J, Jurich J, Fuchs R. The relationship between long-acting reversible contraception and insurance coverage: A retrospective analysis. Contraception. 2016;93(3):266-272.
28 Rocca 2016 - Rocca CH, Thompson KMJ, Goodman S, Westhoff CL, Harper CC. Funding policies and postabortion long-acting reversible contraception: Results from a cluster randomized trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;214(6):716.e1-716.e8.
29 Aligne 2020 - Aligne, C. A., Phelps, R., VanScott, J. L., Korones, S. A., & Greenberg, K. B. (2020). Impact of the Rochester LARC initiative on adolescents’ utilization of long-acting reversible contraception. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 222(4), S890.e1-S890.e6.
30 Badal 2021 - Badal, B., Hwang, L. Y., Pollack, L., Rodriguez, F., Rico, R., Trieu, S. L., & Tebb, K. P. (2021). Availability of and interest in long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and their effect on LARC utilization among Latina adolescents. Journal of Women’s Health Care and Management.
31 Arnold Rehring 2019 - Arnold Rehring, S. M., Reifler, L. M., Seidel, J. H., Glenn, K. A., & Steiner, J. F. (2019). Implementation of recommendations for long-acting contraception among women aged 13 to 18 years in primary care. Academic Pediatrics, 19(5), 572–580.
32 Stevens 2017 - Stevens J, Lutz R, Osuagwu N, et al. A randomized trial of motivational interviewing and facilitated contraceptive access to prevent rapid repeat pregnancy among adolescent mothers. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;217(4):423.e1-423.e9.
33 Tomlin 2017 - Tomlin K, Bambulas T, Sutton M, et al. Motivational interviewing to promote long-acting reversible contraception in postpartum teenagers. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology. 2017;30(3):383–388.
34 Steenland 2021a - Steenland, M. W., Pace, L. E., Sinaiko, A. D., & Cohen, J. L. (2021). Medicaid payments for immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception: Evidence from South Carolina: Study examines South Carolina’s medicaid program payments for the immediate postpartum placement of long-acting reversible contraception for women giving birth from 2010 to 2014. Health Affairs, 40(2), 334–342.
35 McColl 2023 - McColl, R., Gifford, K., McDuffie, M. J., & Boudreaux, M. (2023). Same-day long-acting reversible contraceptive utilization after a statewide contraceptive access initiative. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 228(4), 451.e1-451.e8.
36 Sothornwit 2022 - Sothornwit, J., Kaewrudee, S., Lumbiganon, P., Pattanittum, P., & Averbach, S. H. (2022). Immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of contraceptive implant and IUD for contraception. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2022(10).
37 ACOG-642 2015 - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2015). Increasing access to contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Committee Opinion No. 642. Obstetrics and Gynecology, 126, e44-48.
38 Vayngortin 2020 - Vayngortin, T., Bachrach, L., Patel, S., & Tebb, K. (2020). Adolescents’ acceptance of long-acting reversible contraception after an educational intervention in the emergency department: A randomized controlled trial. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 21(3).
39 Dineley 2018 - Dineley B, Patel T, Black M, et al. Video media in clinic waiting areas increases interest in most effective contraceptive methods. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada. 2018;40(10):1302–1308.
40 Byker 2019 - Byker T, Myers C, Graff M. Can a social media campaign increase the use of long-acting reversible contraception? Evidence from a cluster randomized control trial using Facebook. Contraception. 2019;100(2):116–122.
41 Cochrane-Lopez 2016 - Lopez LM, Grey TW, Chen M, Tolley EE, Stockton LL. Theory-based interventions for contraception (Review). Lopez LM, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;(11):CD007249.
42 Kofinas 2014 - Kofinas JD, Varrey A, Sapra KJ, et al. Adjunctive social media for more effective contraceptive counseling. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2014;123(4):763-770.
43 Lotke 2015 - Lotke PS. Increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unplanned pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of North America. 2015;42(4):557-567.
44 Beeson 2014 - Beeson T, Wood S, Bruen B, et al. Accessibility of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). Contraception. 2014;89(2):91-96.
45 Kroelinger 2019 - Kroelinger, C. D., Morgan, I. A., DeSisto, C. L., Estrich, C., Waddell, L. F., Mackie, C., Pliska, E., Goodman, D. A., Cox, S., Velonis, A., & Rankin, K. M. (2019). State-identified implementation strategies to increase uptake of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception policies. Journal of Women’s Health, 28(3), 346–356.
46 Linton 2023 - Linton, E., Mawson, R., Hodges, V., & Mitchell, C. A. (2023). Understanding barriers to using long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in primary care: A qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 49(4), 282–292.
47 Francis 2017 - Francis JKR, Gold MA. Long-acting reversible contraception for adolescents: A review. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Pediatrics. 2017;171(7):694–701.
48 Kumar 2016a - Kumar N, Brown JD. Access barriers to long-acting reversible contraceptives for adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2016;59(3):248-253.
49 Eisenberg 2013 - Eisenberg D, McNicholas C, Peipert JF. Cost as a barrier to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S59-S63.
50 Baldwin 2013 - Baldwin MK, Edelman AB. The effect of long-acting reversible contraception on rapid repeat pregnancy in adolescents: A review. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S47-S53.
51 Russo 2013a - Russo JA, Miller E, Gold MA. Myths and misconceptions about long-acting reversible contraception (LARC). Journal of Adolescent Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S14-S21.
52 Steiner 2021 - Steiner, R. J., Pampati, S., Kortsmit, K. M., Liddon, N., Swartzendruber, A., & Pazol, K. (2021). Long-acting reversible contraception, condom use, and sexually transmitted infections: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(5), 750–760.
53 Blumenthal 2011 - Blumenthal PD, Voedisch A, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: Increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception. Human Reproduction Update. 2011;17(1):121-137.
54 Kavanaugh 2020 - Kavanaugh, M. L., & Pliskin, E. (2020). Use of contraception among reproductive-aged women in the United States, 2014 and 2016. F&S Reports, 1(2), 83–93.
55 Moniz 2017 - Moniz MH, Chang T, Heisler M, et al. Inpatient postpartum long-acting reversible contraception and sterilization in the United States, 2008-2013. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;129(6):1078–1085.
56 CHOICE - The Contraceptive Choice Project. Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.
57 CDPHE-Title X - Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE). About Colorado Title X family planning.
58 rhap-Contraception - Reproductive Health Access Project. (2022, March 4). Contraception options. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
59 US VA-Reproductive Health - U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. (U.S. VA). (n.d.). Women Veterans health care: Reproductive health. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
60 Pace 2016 - Pace LE, Dusetzina SB, Keating NL. Early impact of the Affordable Care Act on uptake of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Medical Care. 2016;54(9):811-817.
61 Bearak 2016 - Bearak JM, Finer LB, Jerman J, Kavanaugh ML. Changes in out-of-pocket costs for hormonal IUDs after implementation of the Affordable Care Act: An analysis of insurance benefit inquiries. Contraception. 2016;93(2):139-144.
62 Vela 2018 - Vela VX, Patton EW, Sanghavi D, et al. Rethinking Medicaid coverage and payment policy to promote high value care: The case of long-acting reversible contraception. Women’s Health Issues. 2018;28(2):137–143.
63 ACOG-Postpartum LARC - American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). (2023). Medicaid reimbursement for postpartum LARC by state.
64 Higgins 2014a - Higgins, J. A. (2014). Celebration meets caution: LARC’s boons, potential busts, and the benefits of a reproductive justice approach. Contraception, 89(4), 237–241.
65 Higgins 2018 - Higgins TM, Dougherty AK, Badger GJ, et al. Comparing long-acting reversible contraception insertion rates in women with Medicaid vs. private insurance in a clinic with a two-visit protocol. Contraception. 2018;97(1):76–78.
66 Steenland 2021 - Steenland MW, Short SE, Galarraga O. Association between Rhode Island’s paid family leave policy and postpartum care use. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2021;137(4):728-730.
67 Anderson 2023a - Anderson, D. J., & Johnston, D. S. (2023). A brief history and future prospects of contraception. Science, 380(6641), 154–158.
68 US FDA-Milestones - U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U.S. FDA). FDA History: Milestones in U.S. Food and Drug Law. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
69 OBOS-History - Our Bodies, Ourselves Today. (2014). A brief history of birth control. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
70 CalVCB-Sterilization - California Victim Compensation Board (CalVCB). (2024, October 28). Recovery from forced sterilization. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
71 CDC-About teen pregnancy - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). About teen pregnancy.
72 Ott 2020 - Ott MA, Hunt AL, Katz AJ, Zaban LS. Tapping into community resiliency in rural adolescent pregnancy prevention: An implementation sciences approach. Behavioral Medicine. 2020;46(3-4):340-352.
73 Haiman 2023 - Haiman, M. D., & Cubbin, C. (2023). Impact of geography and rurality on preconception health status in the United States. Preventing Chronic Disease, 20(E101), 230104.
74 KFF-Hill 2022 - Hill L, Artiga S, Ranji U. Racial disparities in maternal and infant health: Current status and efforts to address them. KFF. 2022.
75 WHO-SDG 3.7 - World Health Organization. (2024, December 13). SDG target 3.7: Sexual and reproductive health. The Global Health Observatory. Retrieved December 17, 2024.
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see citations and implementation resources for this strategy, visit:
countyhealthrankings.org/strategies-and-solutions/what-works-for-health/strategies/long-acting-reversible-contraception-access
To see all strategies:
countyhealthrankings.org/whatworks