Literature DB >> 23871553

Global survey of healthcare practitioners' beliefs and practices around intrauterine contraceptive method use in nulliparous women.

Kirsten I Black1, Pamela Lotke, Josefina Lira, Tina Peers, Nikki B Zite.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy and safety of intrauterine contraceptive methods (IUCs), healthcare providers (HCPs) are sometimes reluctant to recommend their use, particularly in nulliparous women. This study sought to understand the global practitioner perceived impediments to IUC provision. STUDY
DESIGN: We developed an online survey for HCPs administered across 4 regions comprising 15 countries. We sought their attitudes to IUC provision; their perceived barriers to IUC use, particularly in nulliparous women; as well as their knowledge of the World Health Organization Medical Eligibility Criteria (WHO MEC) for contraceptive use.
RESULTS: We received 1862 responses from HCPs in 15 countries grouped into 4 regions, with an average country response rate of 18%. For analysis, the results were grouped into these regions: Latin America, 402 (21.6%); USA, 156 (8.4%); Europe and Canada, 1103 (59.2%); and Australia, 201 (10.8%). The two most frequently identified perceived barriers to IUC use in nulliparous women were difficulty of insertion (56.6%) and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (49.2%), but responses differed by region and HCP type. Only 49.7% recognized the correct WHO MEC category for IUC use in nulliparous women. DISCUSSION: The results of this survey confirm that, across the four regions, the two main barriers to IUC provision for nulliparous women are concern about the difficulty of insertion and PID. Providers' knowledge of the WHO MEC was lacking universally. A global effort is required to improve understanding of the evidence and knowledge of available guidelines for IUC use.
Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Healthcare practitioners; Intrauterine contraception; Intrauterine device; Knowledge; Nulliparous

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23871553     DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.06.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  4 in total

Review 1.  Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.

Authors:  Marina A S Daniele; John Cleland; Lenka Benova; Moazzam Ali
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 3.223

2.  Swiss gynecologists' opinions and perceptions concerning the use of intrauterine devices by nulliparous and multiparous women: an online survey study.

Authors:  Yaël Zimmermann; Manuela Viviano; Michal Yaron
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2019-03-06

Review 3.  Interventions for the prevention of pain associated with the placement of intrauterine contraceptives: An updated review.

Authors:  Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson; Jeffrey T Jensen; Ilza Monteiro; Tina Peers; Maria Rodriguez; Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo; Luis Bahamondes
Journal:  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand       Date:  2019-06-27       Impact factor: 3.636

Review 4.  Improving Access to Long-Acting Contraceptive Methods and Reducing Unplanned Pregnancy Among Women with Substance Use Disorders.

Authors:  Kirsten I Black; Carolyn A Day
Journal:  Subst Abuse       Date:  2016-05-12
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.