| Literature DB >> 35570281 |
Aurélie Brunie1, Megan Lydon2, Kayla Stankevitz2, Namwinga Chintu3,4, Claire Brennan2,5, Kendal Danna6, Kate H Rademacher7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD)-also known as the hormonal IUD-is a highly effective contraceptive method that has not been widely available in the public sector in Zambia. Early introduction efforts can provide critical insights into the characteristics of users, reasons for method choice, and experiences getting their method.Entities:
Keywords: Contraceptive; Family planning; Hormonal IUD; Levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine device; Long-acting; Menstrual bleeding; Zambia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35570281 PMCID: PMC9107745 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01745-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.742
Participant socio-demographic characteristics
| Hormonal IUD | Copper IUD | Implant | Injectable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (%) | ||||
| 16–24 | 34 (22.2) | 16 (9.5) | 124 (43.4) | 40 (38.8) |
| 25–34 | 76 (49.7) | 94 (55.9) | 124 (43.4) | 46 (44.7) |
| 35–49 | 43 (28.1) | 58 (34.5) | 38 (13.3) | 17 (16.5) |
| Mean age (SD) | 30.1 (6.4) | 32.3 (5.9) | 26.7 (6.4) | 27.6 (6.1) |
| Married (%) | 115 (77.7) | 146 (87.9) | 211 (75.1) | 77 (76.2) |
| Parity (%) | ||||
| 0 | 10 (6.6) | 4 (2.4) | 21 (7.4) | 2 (1.9) |
| 1–2 | 54 (35.6) | 49 (29.9) | 152 (53.4) | 57 (55.4) |
| 3–4 | 63 (41.4) | 73 (44.6) | 81 (28.4) | 33 (32.0) |
| 5+ | 25 (16.5) | 38 (23.2) | 31 (10.9) | 11 (10.7) |
| Mean number of children (SD) | 3.0 (1.9) | 3.4 (1.8) | 2.4 (1.7) | 2.5 (1.6) |
| Fertility intentions (%) | ||||
| Child in < 2 years/timing undecided | 20 (13.1) | 17 (10.1) | 45 (15.8) | 24 (23.3) |
| Child in 2 + years | 38 (25.0) | 30 (17.9) | 107 (37.7) | 40 (38.8) |
| No more children | 45 (29.6) | 55 (32.7) | 44 (15.5) | 17 (16.5) |
| Undecided about more children | 49 (32.2) | 66 (39.3) | 88 (31.0) | 22 (21.4) |
| Highest education completed (%) | ||||
| No schooling or some primary | 21 (13.8) | 20 (11.7) | 44 (15.4) | 12 (11.7) |
| Primary | 55 (35.9) | 65 (38.7) | 136 (47.5) | 54 (52.4) |
| Secondary | 58 (37.9) | 65 (38.7) | 87 (30.4) | 34 (33.0) |
| More than secondary | 19 (12.4) | 18 (10.7) | 19 (6.6) | 3 (2.9) |
| Urban wealth quintile (%)a | ||||
| Lowest | 24 (15.7) | 16 (9.6) | 29 (10.2) | 6 (5.9) |
| Second | 13 (8.5) | 10 (6.0) | 46 (16.3) | 25 (24.5) |
| Middle | 28 (18.3) | 32 (19.2) | 78 (27.6) | 29 (28.4) |
| Fourth | 36 (23.5) | 40 (23.9) | 78 (27.6) | 25 (24.5) |
| Highest | 52 (34.0) | 69 (41.3) | 52 (18.4) | 17 (16.7) |
| Full-time or self-employed (%) | 62 (40.6) | 47 (28.0) | 58 (20.5) | 27 (26.4) |
aRelative wealth was measured using the equity tool for Zambia [28]. The urban version of the equity tool compares participants to the urban population in Zambia
Contraceptive use history and decision-making
| Hormonal IUD | Copper IUD | Implant | Injectable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contraceptive use historya | ||||
| Ever use of modern contraception (%) | 142 (92.8) | 166 (98.8) | 260 (90.9) | 95 (92.2) |
| Ever use of implants (%) | 67 (43.8) | 65 (38.7) | 96 (33.6) | 33 (32.0) |
| Ever use of intra-uterine method (%) | 21 (13.7) | 42 (25.0) | 42 (14.7) | 19 (18.4) |
| Last modern method used (%) | ||||
| Hormonal IUD | 5 (3.3) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Copper IUD | 4 (2.6) | 13 (7.7) | 2 (0.7) | 1 (1.0) |
| Implant | 29 (19.0) | 24 (14.3) | 47 (16.4) | 14 (13.6) |
| Injectable | 65 (42.5) | 69 (41.1) | 105 (36.7) | 39 (37.9) |
| Pills | 1 (0.7) | 3 (1.8) | 6 (2.1) | 4 (3.9) |
| Male condoms | 20 (13.1) | 30 (17.9) | 36 (12.6) | 19 (18.4) |
| Standard days method | 17 (11.1) | 22 (13.1) | 39 (13.6) | 14 (13.6) |
| Otherb | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.4) | 13 (4.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Never used modern method | 11 (7.2) | 2 (1.2) | 26 (9.1) | 8 (7.8) |
| Used modern method in three months prior to receiving method (%) | 80 (52.3) | 99 (58.9) | 132 (46.1) | 44 (42.7) |
| Had heard about hormonal IUD at time of survey (%) | N/A | 115 (68.5) | 149 (52.3) | 54 (52.4) |
| Sources of information about the hormonal IUDc (%) | ||||
| Provider during visit for method | 111 (72.5) | 93 (80.9) | 125 (83.9) | 37 (68.5) |
| Provider, other visit or referral | 42 (27.4) | 23 (20.0) | 34 (22.8) | 15 (27.8) |
| Friends/family | 42 (27.5) | 44 (38.3) | 48 (32.2) | 8 (14.8) |
| Community volunteer or IPC agent | 16 (10.5) | 14 (12.2) | 19 (12.8) | 9 (16.7) |
| Interested in using the hormonal IUD at any time in the futurec (%) | N/A | 97 (85.8) | 116 (77.9) | 28 (51.9) |
| Knew prior to visit that they wanted to use method (%) | 77 (50.3) | 127 (75.6) | 237 (82.9) | 89 (86.4) |
| Made decision without being influenced by others (%) | 65 (84.4) | 111 (87.4) | 196 (82.7) | 81 (91.0) |
| Partner aware of method use (%) | 109 (72.7) | 141 (84.9) | 227 (81.4) | 86 (86.0) |
IPC Interpersonal communication
aFor the purpose of this analysis, modern methods include the hormonal IUD, the copper IUD, implants, injectables, pills, emergency contraception and male and female condoms
bOther methods include female condoms and standard days method
cAmong women who had heard about the hormonal IUD. Multiple responses possible
Adjusted odds ratio estimates and 95% confidence interval from logistic regression analyses
| Characteristic (reference group) a | Hormonal IUD versus Copper IUD (n = 314) | Hormonal IUD versus Implant (n = 431) |
|---|---|---|
| Variables | OR (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) |
| Age | 0.96 (0.91–1.01) | |
| Currently married | 0.85 (0.40–1.83) | 1.79 (0.91–3.54) |
| Completed secondary school | 0.86 (0.50–1.48) | 1.49 (0.91–2.44) |
| Wealth categories (lowest) | ||
| Middle | 0.83 (0.44–1.57) | 1.07 (0.62–1.87) |
| Upper | 0.84 (0.42–1.65) | |
| Full-time or self-employed | ||
| Parity | 1.01 (0.82–1.26) | 1.09 (0.89–1.34) |
| Fertility intentions (no/no more children) | ||
| Undecided about having more children | 0.93 (0.48–1.81) | 0.86 (0.45–1.65) |
| More children, in > 2 years | 1.26 (0.58–2.75) | 0.67 (0.34–1.34) |
| More children, within 2 years or undecided timing | 1.16 (0.44–3.06) | 0.86 (0.38–1.94) |
| Prior use of any IUD or IUD | 0.67 (0.35–1.30) | 0.62 (0.32–1.20) |
| Prior experience of increased bleeding | 0.60 (0.33–1.08) | 0.74 (0.44–1.24) |
| Prior experience of reduced bleeding or amenorrhea | 0.84 (0.50–1.41) | 0.97 (0.59–1.60) |
| Prior experience of bleeding disturbances | 1.42 (0.77–2.64) | 1.11 (0.63–1.95) |
| Partner aware of method use | 0.60 (0.29–1.22) | |
aAge and parity are interval variables. Other variables are yes/no binary variables, with no as the reference level or categorical variables with the reference level included in parentheses. For urban wealth quintiles, the reference level combines the three lowest quintiles. Statistically significant values (p ≤ 0.05) are bolded
Fig. 1Reasons for method choice. *Multiple responses possible
Fig. 2Method participants would have chosen if method received not available. *Gone elsewhere for same method includes implant and injectable users who would have chosen another implant/injectable type
Experiences with counseling and services, by method received
| Hormonal IUD | Copper IUD | Implant | Injectable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Told by provider about other methods (%) | 143 (93.5) | 162 (96.4) | 256 (89.5) | 95 (92.2) |
| Told about bleeding changes and/or side effects (%) | 146 (95.4) | 152 (90.5) | 253 (88.5) | 85 (82.5) |
| Side effects mentioned by provider (%) a | ||||
| Headaches | 24 (16.4) | 32 (21.1) | 75 (29.6) | 33 (38.8) |
| Nausea/vomiting | 9 (6.2) | 16 (10.5) | 49 (19.4) | 23 (27.1) |
| Weight gain | 10 (6.8) | 10 (6.6) | 58 (22.9) | 23 (27.1) |
| Other | 42 (28.8) | 62 (40.8) | 81 (32.0) | 23 (27.1) |
| | 54 (37.0) | 66 (43.4) | 124 (49.0) | 44 (51.8) |
| Bleeding changes mentioned by provider (%)a | ||||
| Lighter or shorter bleeding | 128 (87.7) | 113 (74.3) | 136 (53.8) | 48 (56.5) |
| No bleeding | 63 (43.2) | 53 (34.9) | 137 (54.2) | 54 (63.5) |
| Heavier or longer bleeding | 34 (23.3) | 45 (29.6) | 147 (58.1) | 56 (65.9) |
| Bleeding disturbances | 65 (44.5) | 66 (43.4) | 168 (66.4) | 51 (60.0) |
| Less pain during period | 36 (24.7) | 38 (25.0) | 19 (7.5) | 7 (8.2) |
| | 146 (100.0) | 148 (97.4) | 250 (98.8) | 84 (98.8) |
| Correctly reported method duration (%)b | 146 (95.4) | 158 (94.0) | 260 (92.5) | 101 (98.1) |
| Told by provider at insertion that method can be removed at any time they want (%) | 149 (97.4) | 165 (98.2) | 259 (91.2) | N/A |
| Told at insertion where removal can be obtained (%) | ||||
| Insertion place only | 61 (39.9) | 31 (18.5) | 84 (29.6) | N/A |
| Place other than insertion place only | 2 (1.3) | 6 (3.6) | 13 (4.6) | N/A |
| Insertion place and another place | 88 (57.5) | 126 (75.0) | 165 (58.1) | N/A |
| Not told about any place, don’t know | 2 (1.3) | 5 (3.0) | 22 (7.8) | N/A |
| Felt privacy sufficient when received method (%) | 151 (98.7) | 165 (98.2) | 284 (99.3) | 89 (86.4) |
| Experienced pain/discomfort when received method (%)c | 31 (20.3) | 28 (16.7) | 43 (15.0) | 9 (8.7) |
aAmong women counseled on bleeding changes and/or side effects. Multiple responses possible
bBased on the duration participants recalled being told by providers when receiving the method. For implants, correct duration was determined based on implant type as informed by participant reports of the number of rods in their implants. Those who did not know their implant type (n = 5) were excluded
CResponse options included temporary pain, discomfort/pain that lasted a few days, continuing pains, cramping, infection/swelling, scarring or other
Summary of factors related to the decision to use the hormonal IUD emerging from IDIs
| Motivating factors | Demotivating factors |
|---|---|
Characteristics of the hormonal IUD Reduced bleeding Therapeutic benefits Provider counseling | Little information on method available in the community Perceived novelty of method Fear of intrauterine insertion |
Themes that were most prevalent in the IDIs are shown in bold