Literature DB >> 25461369

Understanding the barriers and myths limiting the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: results of a survey of European/Canadian healthcare providers.

Kai J Buhling1, Brian Hauck2, Sylvia Dermout3, Katty Ardaens4, Lena Marions5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate healthcare providers' (HCPs') knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding intrauterine contraception (IUC). STUDY
DESIGN: HCPs in eight European countries and Canada who saw at least 20 women per month for contraception completed an online questionnaire. Responses were evaluated by country.
RESULTS: In total, 1103 HCPs completed the survey: 633 obstetrician-gynecologists, 335 general practitioners and 135 family planning clinicians (physician, midwife or nurse). When respondents in different countries were asked to report their three main barriers to considering IUC, predominant concerns were nulliparity (34-69%) and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID; 14-83%) for women in general, and insertion difficulty (25-83%), PID (17-83%), insertion pain (7-60%) and infertility (6-55%) for nulliparous women. In addition, 4-59% of HCPs reported that they never proactively include IUC in contraceptive counseling for a nulliparous woman, regardless of her age. Furthermore, only 30-61% of respondents correctly identified that, in the World Health Organization medical eligibility criteria for IUC, nulliparity is category 2 (benefits outweigh risks).
CONCLUSIONS: HCPs in Europe and Canada have clear gaps in their knowledge regarding IUC and misplaced concerns persist, particularly regarding use of IUC in nulliparous women; the predominant misconceptions are about PID, insertion difficulty and insertion pain. Further education on the evidence is needed so that IUC is recognized as being suitable for young and nulliparous women and is included in contraceptive counseling.
Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Barriers; Healthcare provider knowledge; Intrauterine contraception; Nulliparous; Survey

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25461369     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.10.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol        ISSN: 0301-2115            Impact factor:   2.435


  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

Review 2.  Hormonal contraceptive use in Ireland: trends and co-prescribing practices.

Authors:  Laura O'Mahony; Anne-Marie Liddy; Michael Barry; Kathleen Bennett
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Contraceptive experience and perception, a survey among Ukrainian women.

Authors:  Volodymyr Podolskyi; Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson; Lena Marions
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  Utility of the Levonorgestrel-Releasing Intrauterine System in the Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding and Dysmenorrhea: A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Paola Bianchi; Sun-Wei Guo; Marwan Habiba; Giuseppe Benagiano
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 4.964

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.