{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018505825908156272, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007882111034955449, 'mean_word_length': 4.88508064516129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Why are US women not using long-acting contraceptives?

CONTEXT
Given the level of unintended pregnancy in the United States, it is somewhat surprising that hormonal implants and injectables-methods that are long-acting, reversible, highly effective and convenient--have not attained the popularity enjoyed by other medical methods. Knowing the reasons why women have so far spurned these methods might lead to the design and implementation of interventions and targeted social marketing to promote their use.


METHODS
Data from the 1993 and 1995 rounds of the National Survey of Women are used to examine the reasons women gave for not having used the implant or injectables, whether they intended to use these methods and how their attitudes toward them may influence their decision to use such methods in the future. Logistic regression models were used to identify the social and demographic characteristics that influence women's decisions not to use these methods.


RESULTS
Fewer than 2% of women who were at risk of an unintended pregnancy in 1995 were using the implant, and under 3% were using the injectable. Women gave three major reasons for not using either of these methods: lack of knowledge; fear of side effects or health hazards; and satisfaction with the method they were currently using. Age, education, marital status, parity and current contraceptive method strongly predicted fear of side effects, lack of knowledge and satisfaction with the current method as reasons for not using the implant or the injectable. For example, women aged 30 or older and those with a college education were half as likely as younger women and those with no college education to mention fear of side effects as their main reason for not using the implant. Likewise, single women, women with one or more children and those using a barrier method were 2-3 times as likely as married women, childless women and those using a medical method to attribute nonuse to the implant's side effects. Few women said they intended to use these methods in the next 12 months: 5% for the implant and 10% for the injectable. Single women, women with no college education, women with children, women wanting to have a child (or another child) and women with positive attitudes toward the effect of using an injectable were significantly more likely to say they intended to use the injectable. Nevertheless, substantial proportions of women reported quite negative attitudes about these methods.


CONCLUSIONS
The low prevalence of use and the low level of use intention for the implant and for injectables raise questions about the promise for the future of these methods. Each method seems to appeal to certain subgroups of women, however. Thus, if proper interventions and social marketing are targeted to such groups, they may be disabused of misperceptions regarding these methods and possibly become more willing to try them.