Skip to main content

Change of contraceptive preference after the free-LARC program for Thai teenagers



In 2014, the Thai government launched a free-of-charge long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) program for Thai female adolescents. However, its acceptance had not been reported. Therefore, this study aimed to describe contraceptive use among women of reproductive age before and after the program was implemented.


This retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out from the medical records of 9000 women of reproductive age, who attended the Family Planning Clinic at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between 2009 and 2018. The Chi-square test was used to compare the contraceptive methods administered before and after the program was implemented, and binary logistic regression was used to find the factors associated with implant use after completion of the program.


Depot medroxy progesterone acetate (DMPA) injection was the most popular contraceptive method used among 40.9% of the women. The rates of subdermal implant use were increased significantly after the program was implemented (2.3–9.3%, p < 0.001). Implant use for adolescents aged less than 20 years increased from 2.6% to 56.4%, while DMPA was the most popular method used among adult women at 36.4%. Factors associated significantly with implant use after implement of the program included age of less than 20 years (aOR = 4.17 (CI: 1.84–9.44); p = 0.001) and nulliparity (aOR = 8.55 (CI: 3.77–19.39); p < 0.001).


This study showed a significant increase in contraceptive implant use after the free-LARC program for adolescents had been applied.

Statement of implications

Contraceptive implant is the most effective hormonal reversible contraception. Its use rate is low among all age groups, but increased clearly after the free-of-charge program was applied for adolescents.

Peer Review reports


Contraception is beneficial in maternal and child health improvement, economic growth and education enhancement by spacing pregnancies, limiting family size, and preventing unintended pregnancy. There are many reversible contraceptive methods including natural family planning, the barrier method, combined oral pills, progestin-only pills, transdermal patch, vaginal ring, injected contraception, implants, and intrauterine devices (IUDs) [1]. Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARC) include the etonogestrel and levonorgestrel subdermal implant, copper-intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems [2,3,4]. LARC is the most effective reversible contraceptive method, due to its lowest number of failures and higher continuation rate [2,3,4,5,6]. It was recommended as the first-line contraceptive method for the prevention of unintended pregnancy in adolescents [2, 3]. Nevertheless, The most popular contraceptive used among Thai post-partum women was injected progestin, and the least, implant [7].

Adolescent pregnancy is a public health issue that can cause social, educational and health problems for female adolescents and their offspring. It is associated with an increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidities [8, 9]. Therefore, an appropriate contraceptive service is needed for all adolescents [10]. The problem of adolescent pregnancy is of concern in Thailand [11], and so the Thai government launched the adolescent pregnancy prevention program in 2014. This program aimed to increase effective contraception for adolescents by offering no cost LARC for Thai women aged under 20 years. The free-LARC program for adolescents was initiated at the Family Planning Clinic, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital around the end of 2014. Increased LARC use after implementing the free support service has succeeded as previously reported [12,13,14]. However, contraceptive preference depends on many factors, such as, myth, attitudes, awareness and misperception [3], which differ among ethnicities [15,16,17].

The objective of the study was to describe contraceptive use among Thai women of reproductive age before and after implementation of the free-LARC program for adolescents.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at the Family Planning Clinic, Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital from 2009 to 2018. The contraceptive services provided at the hospital included condoms, oral contraceptive pills, injected progestin (depot-medroxy progesterone acetate; DMPA), subdermal implant (LNG and ENG), copper-intrauterine device (Cu-IUD), levonorgestrel IUD, vaginal ring, and female and male sterilization. However, the intrauterine device and vaginal ring had limited availability during the study period. The women in this study had to pay for the cost of contraception themselves, except for those aged less than 20 years, who could select the use of implant or Cu-IUD free of charge with support from the government. All of the Thai women who attended the Family Planning Clinic at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital for the first time between 2009 and 2018 met the inclusion criterion to participate in this study. If they came for more than one visit during that period, they were counted only once. However, if they switched to a different contraceptive method during that time, they would be counted twice.

The exclusion criterion was incomplete data from the medical records. Data of 9,000 women of reproductive age were included in this study, which was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (OBG-2562-06406). The data were collected from medical records. Demographic data and contraceptive choices of the participants were collected. All statistical tests were perform with the statistical package for social science (SPSS, USA version 22.0). The Chi square test was used to compare the percentage of contraceptive use before (2009–2014) during and after (2015–2018) the free-LARC program for adolescents. Multivariable logistic regression with backward selection was employed to find the association between the characteristics of implant users after the program. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


Nine thousand women attended to the Family Planning Clinic at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital from 2009 to 2018. Their mean age was 28.53 ± 6.09 years. Almost all of them (98.5%) were married or had a partner. Eighty-eight percent of these women came to the clinic for postpartum care, while 1,096 of them were non-postpartum. Half of the women (48.4%) were employed in the private sector. Approximately one-third (38.5%) of them had an educational level of bachelor’s degree as shown in Table 1. DMPA injection was the most popular contraceptive method used among 40.9% of the women, followed by progestin-only pills (30.3%). There was an increase of implant use after the free-LARC program for adolescents was applied, while the use of DMPA decreased as shown in Table 2 and Fig. 1.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of women aged younger than 20 years and those aged 20 years and older before and after the free-LARC program for adolescents was applied
Table 2 The contraceptive methods used among women aged younger than 20 years and those aged 20 years and older before and after the free-LARC program for adolescents was applied
Fig. 1
figure 1

Percentage of women using contraceptive implant between those under and over 20 years of age from 2009 to 2018

After launching the program, implant use among women aged under 20 years clearly increased and became the most popular contraceptive method among adolescents, while DMPA remained the most common contraceptive used among adult women, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 2. There was a greater proportion of students involved after the program was implmented.

Among 460 women using subdermal implant, the age of less than 20 years and nulliparity were factors associated with implant use after adjustment for other related factors, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Factors associated with subdermal implant use after the free-LARC program for adolescents was applied (n = 460)

The subgroup analysis among the non-postpartum group revealed that more nulliparous and adolescent women attended the clinic after the free-LARC program had been launched, as shown in Table 4. The percentage of implant use among the non-postpartum group rose by nearly 3.5-fold.

Table 4 Demographic characteristics and contraceptive methods of postpartum and non-postpartum women before, during and after the program


Accessibility of social, economic, educational and contraceptive services has impact on the contraception needed and appropriate type chosen [17]. The prevalence of LARC use increased in a decade, but low financial income might be a cause of limited selection [18,19,20].

The most common contraceptive method used in this study was DMPA. While 87.8% of the women in this study were in the postpartum period, and could not use estrogen during the breastfeeding period, DMPA remained popular among the non-postpartum group. The less popular combination of oral contraceptive pills and condoms might have easier access, as these two products can be bought over-the-counter (OTC) at a pharmacy. The women who attended the Family Planning Clinic at the hospital tended to want less convenient contraceptive methods.

The contraceptive implant is the most effective reversible hormonal contraception method, with a high continuation and satisfaction rate among adolescents and adult women [2,3,4,5, 21,22,23]. The barriers against obtaining this type of contraception includes misperception regarding safety and side effects, fear and pain from the insertion process, and cost of the implant [3]. However, over the last ten years, more women have been interested in using an implant. Despite the dramatic increase in the use of this method among teenagers in this study, the financial issue is an important obstacle for adolescents. Once discarding the financial issue on choice of contraceptive, other studies reported more women selecting the use of LARC, especially, IUD [24, 25]. The obvious increase of implant use has been greater in this study than in previous reports since the free-LARC for adolescents program was implemented [12, 13, 24,25,26]. This could be explained by the limitation of IUD resources and the postpartum issue. The long-term use of DMPA has had an impact on bone mineral density [3, 27,28,29], which was not seen in the use of contraceptive implants [30, 31]. More research about bone health and contraception is needed, but in the meantime, the current trend of choice from DMPA to implants for adolescents is a good sign for long-term bone health.

The factors associated with LARC use in general were being married and multiparous, and using to avoid unintended pregnancy and adverse events of short-acting reversible contraception [14, 32, 33]. This study did not explore the reasons for implant use, but after the free-LARC program was implemented, women who were aged less than 20 years and nulliparous had high adjusted odds ratios. Besides the issue of financial support, well-trained health care providers and accessible contraceptive clinics for all women are necessary for appropriate methods of contraception [34,35,36].

The strength of this study was the large amount of data showing the change of preferred contraception after the free-LARC program had been implemented. The limitations of this retrospective study were limited available data, unavailable uncontrolled resources of IUD and vaginal rings, and OTC access to oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and condoms. Further study on the awareness and attitude toward LARC is needed for women and health care providers. Extension of the free-LARC program to all age groups might help women select appropriate contraception methods without limitation.


Implant use increased clearly after the free program was implemented, particularly among women under 20 years of age. It might be assumed that the financial issue is a major barrier for women using contraceptive implants.

Availability of data and materials

All of the data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the published article.


  1. Festin MPR. Overview of modern contraception. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;66:4–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Diedrich JT, Klein DA, Peipert JF. Long-acting reversible contraception in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(4):364 e1-e12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Itriyeva K. Use of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) and the Depo-Provera shot in adolescents. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2018;48(12):321–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology L-ARCWG. Practice Bulletin No. 186: Long-Acting Reversible Contraception: Implants and Intrauterine Devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):e251–e69.

  5. Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Madden T, Allsworth JE, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jaisamrarn U, Santipap M, Santibenchakul S. Discontinuation rates of different contraceptive methods in Thai women up to 1-year after method initiation. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):10819.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaovisitsaree S, Noi-um S, Kietpeerakool C. Review of postpartum contraceptive practices at Chiang Mai University Hospital: implications for improving quality of service. Med Princ Pract. 2012;21(2):145–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ganchimeg T, Ota E, Morisaki N, Laopaiboon M, Lumbiganon P, Zhang J, et al. Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a World Health Organization multicountry study. BJOG. 2014;121(Suppl 1):40–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Malabarey OT, Balayla J, Klam SL, Shrim A, Abenhaim HA. Pregnancies in young adolescent mothers: a population-based study on 37 million births. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25(2):98–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Deitch J, Stark L. Adolescent demand for contraception and family planning services in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Glob Public Health. 2019;14(9):1316–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sukrat B, Okascharoen C, Rattanasiri S, Aekplakorn W, Arunakul J, Saejeng K, et al. Estimation of the adolescent pregnancy rate in Thailand 2008–2013: an application of capture-recapture method. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20(1):120.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Gyllenberg F, Juselius M, Gissler M, Heikinheimo O. Long-acting reversible contraception free of charge, method initiation, and abortion rates in Finland. Am J Public Health. 2018;108(4):538–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Hellstrom A, Gemzell Danielsson K, Kopp KH. Trends in use and attitudes towards contraception in Sweden: results of a nationwide survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2019;24(2):154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Mullersman JL, Peipert JF. The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):11 e51-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hoopes AJ, Teal SB, Akers AY, Sheeder J. Low acceptability of certain contraceptive methods among young women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2018;31(3):274–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Machiyama K, Huda FA, Ahmmed F, Odwe G, Obare F, Mumah JN, et al. Women’s attitudes and beliefs towards specific contraceptive methods in Bangladesh and Kenya. Reprod Health. 2018;15(1):75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Namasivayam A, Lovell S, Namutamba S, Schluter PJ. Improved contraceptive use among women and men in Uganda between 1995–2016: A repeated cross-sectional population study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(7): e0219963.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Ihongbe TO, Masho SW. Changes in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. nulliparous women: results from the 2006–2010, 2011–2013, and 2013–2015 national survey of family growth. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018;27(3):245–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. Women, 2009–2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):917–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Ponce de Leon RG, Ewerling F, Serruya SJ, Silveira MF, Sanhueza A, Moazzam A, et al. Contraceptive use in Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on long-acting reversible contraceptives: prevalence and inequalities in 23 countries. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(2):e227–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Berenson AB, Wiemann CM. Patient satisfaction and side effects with levonorgestrel implant (Norplant) use in adolescents 18 years of age or younger. Pediatrics. 1993;92(2):257–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1105–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sherin M, Waters J. Long-acting reversible contraceptives for adolescent females: a review of current best practices. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2019;31(5):675–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rosenstock JR, Peipert JF, Madden T, Zhao Q, Secura GM. Continuation of reversible contraception in teenagers and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(6):1298–305.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C, Mullersman J, Buckel CM, Zhao Q, et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(14):1316–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2014;46(3):125–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Erkkola R, Landgren BM. Role of progestins in contraception. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84(3):207–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Clark MK, Sowers M, Levy B, Nichols S. Bone mineral density loss and recovery during 48 months in first-time users of depot medroxyprogesterone acetate. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5):1466–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jacobstein R, Polis CB. Progestin-only contraception: injectables and implants. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28(6):795–806.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Modesto W, Dal Ava N, Monteiro I, Bahamondes L. Body composition and bone mineral density in users of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;292(6):1387–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pongsatha S, Ekmahachai M, Suntornlimsiri N, Morakote N, Chaovisitsaree S. Bone mineral density in women using the subdermal contraceptive implant Implanon for at least 2 years. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109(3):223–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Hubacher D, Kost K, Finer LB. Characteristics of women in the United States who use long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(6):1349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Frost JJ, Darroch JE. Factors associated with contraceptive choice and inconsistent method use, United States, 2004. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2008;40(2):94–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Berlan ED, Pritt NM, Norris AH. Pediatricians’ attitudes and beliefs about long-acting reversible contraceptives influence counseling. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2017;30(1):47–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Coles CB, Shubkin CD. Effective, recommended, underutilized: a review of the literature on barriers to adolescent usage of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2018;30(5):683–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Thompson KM, Rocca CH, Kohn JE, Goodman S, Stern L, Blum M, et al. Public funding for contraception, provider training, and use of highly effective contraceptives: a cluster randomized trial. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(3):541–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors would like to acknowledge all of the nurses, medical staff and resident trainees who work at the Family Planning Clinic of Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital.


This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or non-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SI: Project development, Data collection, Data analysis and Manuscript writing. TP: Project development, Data analysis and Manuscript writing. NM and TM: Data collection and Data analysis. WP and SP: Data collection and Manuscript editing. SC: Project development and Manuscript editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tawiwan Pantasri.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (OBG-2562-06406). All of the methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was not obtained, because this was a retrospective study. Furthermore, this research did not involve the use of identifiable private information, and informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (OBG-2562-06406).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Inthavong, S., Pantasri, T., Morakote, N. et al. Change of contraceptive preference after the free-LARC program for Thai teenagers. BMC Women's Health 22, 211 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Contraception
  • Long-acting reversible contraceptives
  • Contraceptive implant
  • Adolescent