Irene Woo1, Sara Seifert2, Dacia Hendricks3, Roxanne M Jamshidi4, Anne E Burke4, Michelle C Fox4. 1. Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Institution, 600 North Wolfe Street, Phipps 279 Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287. Electronic address: iwoo30@gmail.com. 2. Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins Institution, 600 North Wolfe Street, Phipps 279 Baltimore, MD, USA, 21287. 3. Howard University College of Medicine, 520 W St North West, Washington DC, USA, 20059. 4. Department of Family Planning, John Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, 4940 Eastern Ave Baltimore, MD, USA, 21224.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies show immediate postpartum (PP) insertion increases use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Our objective was to compare the satisfaction and continuation rates of the two types of devices at 6 months and 1 year following PP insertion. STUDY DESIGN: We enrolled 133 women in a prospective cohort study following immediate PP insertion of an implant or IUD at two academic hospitals during 8 months of 2011. Subjects completed an enrollment survey during hospital admission and a follow-up phone survey 6 months and 1 year PP. RESULTS: At 6 months PP, 72% of subjects provided follow-up information. Implant users were more likely to be using the originally-placed device (40/41, 98% vs. 45/55, 82%, p=0.02); nine women reported IUD expulsions. When accounting for replacement of expelled IUDs, IUD continuation at 6 months was 89% yielding similar continuation rates between groups (p=0.12). At 1 year PP, 51% provided follow-up. Of those, 82% still had a LARC method in place with similar continuation by device type (84% for implants, 81% for IUDs, p=0.96). Overall, satisfaction was similarly high in both groups. CONCLUSION: Due to IUD expulsion, implants had a higher continuation rate than IUDs six months following immediate PP insertion. After replacement of expelled IUDs, continuation and satisfaction were similar for both devices at 6 months and 1 year. IMPLICATIONS: Placement of implants and IUDs immediately PP can lead to high satisfaction. Despite early IUD expulsions, continuation rates were similar to those placed outside of the immediate PP period.
OBJECTIVE: Studies show immediate postpartum (PP) insertion increases use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Our objective was to compare the satisfaction and continuation rates of the two types of devices at 6 months and 1 year following PP insertion. STUDY DESIGN: We enrolled 133 women in a prospective cohort study following immediate PP insertion of an implant or IUD at two academic hospitals during 8 months of 2011. Subjects completed an enrollment survey during hospital admission and a follow-up phone survey 6 months and 1 year PP. RESULTS: At 6 months PP, 72% of subjects provided follow-up information. Implant users were more likely to be using the originally-placed device (40/41, 98% vs. 45/55, 82%, p=0.02); nine women reported IUD expulsions. When accounting for replacement of expelled IUDs, IUD continuation at 6 months was 89% yielding similar continuation rates between groups (p=0.12). At 1 year PP, 51% provided follow-up. Of those, 82% still had a LARC method in place with similar continuation by device type (84% for implants, 81% for IUDs, p=0.96). Overall, satisfaction was similarly high in both groups. CONCLUSION: Due to IUD expulsion, implants had a higher continuation rate than IUDs six months following immediate PP insertion. After replacement of expelled IUDs, continuation and satisfaction were similar for both devices at 6 months and 1 year. IMPLICATIONS: Placement of implants and IUDs immediately PP can lead to high satisfaction. Despite early IUD expulsions, continuation rates were similar to those placed outside of the immediate PP period.
Authors: Barbara Wilkinson; Mustafa Ascha; Emily Verbus; Mary Montague; Jane Morris; Brian Mercer; Kavita Shah Arora Journal: Contraception Date: 2018-09-05 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: David K Turok; Lawrence Leeman; Jessica N Sanders; Lauren Thaxton; Jennifer L Eggebroten; Nicole Yonke; Holly Bullock; Rameet Singh; Lori M Gawron; Eve Espey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-08-23 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Abigail Liberty; Kimberly Yee; Blair G Darney; Ana Lopez-Defede; Maria I Rodriguez Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-12-14 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sarah H Averbach; Yokabed Ermias; Gary Jeng; Kathryn M Curtis; Maura K Whiteman; Erin Berry-Bibee; Denise J Jamieson; Polly A Marchbanks; Naomi K Tepper; Tara C Jatlaoui Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Charlan D Kroelinger; Isabel A Morgan; Carla L DeSisto; Cameron Estrich; Lisa F Waddell; Christine Mackie; Ellen Pliska; David A Goodman; Shanna Cox; Alisa Velonis; Kristin M Rankin Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 2.681