Table 2

Comparing vigilance status with other reproductive health behaviors in women who have ever been sexually active

Total (n = 77c) Vigilance statusP value
Nonvigilant (n = 37) Contraceptive vigilant (n = 29) FPV (n = 11)
Age at sexual debut (years)18.3 ± 2.418.0 ± 1.918.4 ± 2.918.6 ± 2.70.745
Contraceptive method frequently used
 Used nothing4 (5.2)4 (10.8)0 (0)0 (0)0.192a
 Oral contraceptive pills48 (62.3)19 (51.4)22 (75.9)7 (63.6)0.123a
 Male condoms50 (64.9)21 (56.8)24 (82.8)5 (45.5)0.030a
 Combination method29 (41.4)10 (32.3)16 (57.1)3 (27.3)0.101a
Effectiveness of contraceptive methods used (probability)0.89 ± 0.170.84 ± 0.230.93 ± 0.070.92 ± 0.070.025
Awareness of PC before study start55 (72.4)26 (72.2)18 (62.1)11 (100)0.046
Actually received PC21 (27.6)10 (27.0)0 (0)11 (100)<0.001
Age when PC first received (years) (n = 46)26.6 ± 1.2b29.9 ± 1.1b18.4 ± 1.6b<0.001b
Started a discussion about PC with a health care professional64 (83.1)33 (89.2)20 (69.0)11 (100)0.034a
Past READY-Girls participant44 (57.1)21 (56.8)14 (48.3)9 (81.8)0.173a
  • Data are mean ± SD or n (%).

  • aP value based on Fisher exact test.

  • bMean and SE are based on Kaplan-Meier estimation, and P value is based on the log-rank test.

  • cThree (3.8%) women could not be classified as to their vigilance status due to missing information on whether they used contraception every time they had sexual intercourse when not trying to become pregnant.