OTSurveyDisability and health journal2017

Disparities in receipt of family planning services by disability status: New estimates from the National Survey of Family Growth.

William Mosher, Tina Bloom, Rosemary Hughes and 3 others

PMID 28395910

WHAT IT FOUND

In a national survey, women with disabilities reported receiving any family planning service less often than women without disabilities, especially those aged 25-44, unmarried, with prior births, non-Hispanic Black, or lower income.

Key findings

01Women with disabilities reported receiving any family planning service less often than women without disabilities (37.7% vs 42.4%).

02After adjusting for age, parity, and general health, women with disabilities still had lower odds of receiving any family planning service (adjusted odds ratio 0.80; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93).

03The lower odds were significant for women with only physical disabilities and women with both physical and cognitive disabilities, but not for women with only cognitive disability.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The survey is cross-sectional, so it cannot show that disability caused lower service receipt. Disability status and service receipt were self-reported. The sample covered women in households, so women aged 15-44 living in institutions were not included. The disability measure did not capture severity or timing of disability onset. The study did not explain why family planning services were missed.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The listed research support is NIH extramural.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that disability causes lower family planning service use or that provider bias explains it. The survey is cross-sectional and self-reported, and it does not measure why services were missed.

Read it on PubMed →