| Literature DB >> 35873134 |
Maria Wemrell1,2, Lena Gunnarsson3.
Abstract
Background: While the efficacy and safety of the contraceptive copper intrauterine device (IUD) have been affirmed, alongside its importance for the prevention of unintended pregnancies, some studies have pointed to negative attitudes toward the device. In recent years, social media communication about it has included claims about systemic side effects, unsubstantiated by medical authorities. Research from the Swedish context is sparse. This study investigates attitudes toward the copper IUD and any correlations between negative attitudes toward or experiences of the device, and (1) sociodemographic characteristics, (2) the evaluation of the reliability of different sources of information, and (3) trust in healthcare and other societal institutions.Entities:
Keywords: Sweden; attitudes; copper IUD; survey; women's health
Year: 2022 PMID: 35873134 PMCID: PMC9304811 DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2022.920298
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Glob Womens Health ISSN: 2673-5059
Unweighted study population characteristics and distribution of negative attitudes toward the copper IUD between sociodemographic groups.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Women | 1,998 (99.9) | 649 (32.5) | 1,349 (67.5) |
| Other gender identity (with womb) | 2 (0.1) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) |
| 18–29 years | 422 (21.1) | 176 (41.7) | 246 (58.3) |
| 30–49 years | 1,074 (53.7) | 356 (33.1) | 718 (66.9) |
| 50–64 years | 504 (25.2) | 117 (23.2) | 387 (76.8) |
| High education | 1,466 (73.3) | 472 (32.2) | 994 (67.8) |
| Low education | 530 (26.5) | 176 (33.2) | 354 (66.8) |
| High income | 361 (18.1) | 97 (26.9) | 264 (73.1) |
| Medium income | 999 (50.0) | 305 (30.5) | 694 (69.5) |
| Low income | 502 (25.1) | 212 (42.2) | 290 (57.8) |
| Born in Sweden | 1,923 (96.2) | 624 (32.4) | 1,299 (67.6) |
| Born elsewhere | 75 (3.8) | 24 (32.0) | 51 (68.0) |
| Children | 1,218 (60.9) | 380 (31.2) | 838 (68.8) |
| No children | 513 (39.1) | 269 (34.4) | 513 (65.6) |
Perceived risks and benefits of the copper IUD.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The copper IUD fills an important function in preventing unwanted pregnancy | 923 (46.1) | 735 (36.8) | 87 (4.4) | 18 (0.9) | 229 (11.4) |
| The risks and side effects of the copper IUD are uncommon | 191 (9.5) | 511 (25.6) | 380 (19.0) | 136 (6.8) | 770 (38.5) |
| The risks and side effects of the copper IUD are mild | 157 (7.8) | 548 (27.4) | 368 (18.4) | 142 (7.1) | 776 (38.8) |
| The benefits of the copper IUD outweigh its potential risks | 355 (17.8) | 600 (30.0) | 228 (11.4) | 119 (5.9) | 690 (34.5) |
Associations between negative attitudes toward and negative experience of, unwillingness to use, and having made reference to copper-related or systemic side effect of the copper IUD, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
|
| |
|---|---|
| Unwillingness to use | 3.81 (2.95–4.91) |
| Negative experiences | 15.66 (9.53–25.76) |
| Reference to copper/systemic side effects | 5.86 (2.99–11.48) |
Associations between sociodemographic characteristics and negative attitudes toward, negative experience of, unwillingness to use or having made reference to copper-related or systemic side effects of the copper IUD, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| High | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
| Medium | Inconclusive | Inconclusive | Inconclusive | Inconclusive |
| Low | 1.55 (1.12–2.15) | 1.92 (1.03–3.57) | Inconclusive | Inconclusive |
|
| ||||
| 18–29 | 2.12 (1.55–2.90) | Inconclusive | 2.38 (1.57–3.63) | Inconclusive |
| 30–49 | 1.60 (1.21–2.12) | Inconclusive | 2.90 (1.94–4.34) | Inconclusive |
| 50–64 | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference |
Associations between attitudes regarding information and healthcare and negative attitudes toward IUD, expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Healthcare | 1.64 (1.24–2.16) | 2.42 (1.26–4.65) | inconclusive | 2.29 (1.14–4.63) |
| Researchers | Inconclusive | 2.42 (1.29–4.53) | 1.62 (1.09–2.41) | 2.56 (1.23–5.35) |
| Politicians | Inconclusive | 1.93 (1.25–2.97) | Inconclusive | Inconclusive |
| School | 1.39 (1.13–1.71) | 1.91 (1.22–2.98) | 1.35 (1.03–1.77) | Inconclusive |
| Social insurance agency | Inconclusive | Inconclusive | Inconclusive | 1.97 (1.00–3.86) |
| Police | 1.96 (1.54–2.50) | Inconclusive | 1.52 (1.11–2.07) | Inconclusive |
|
| ||||
| Medical professionals | 1.79 (1.31–2.43) | 3.04 (1.41–6.54) | 2.23 (1.54–3.23) | 4.36 (2.27–8.40) |
| Regulatory institutions | 1.63 (1.26–2.10) | 2.90 (1.67–5.02) | 2.03 (1.47–2.80) | 3.16 (1.69–5.90) |
| CAM | 0.67 (0.53–0.87) | Inconclusive | Inconclusive | 0.32 (0.17–0.59) |
| Social media | 0.54 (0.38–0.76) | Inconclusive | Inconclusive | 0.31 (0.14–0.65) |
| Other people encountered in person | 0.63 (0.52–0.78) | Inconclusive | 0.68 (0.52–0.89) | 0.40 (0.19–0.87) |
| Own experiences | 0.59 (0.48–0.74) | Inconclusive | 0.70 (0.54–0.92) | Inconclusive |
|
| ||||
| From healthcare | 2.32 (1.75–3.09) | inconclusive | 2.08 (1.42–3.04) | 3.94 (2.08–7.48) |
| From CAM | 4.20 (2.85–6.19) | 2.33 (1.16–4.68) | 2.61 (1.63–4.17) | 3.12 (1.40–6.97) |
| From other individuals | 3.23 (2.63–3.96) | inconclusive | 1.78 (1.37–2.30) | 4.35 (2.39–7.91) |
| Never | 0.36 (0.30–0.44) | inconclusive | 0.61 (0.48–0.78) | 0.22 (0.11–0.43) |
|
| ||||
| Source criticism | inconclusive | inconclusive | inconclusive | inconclusive |
| Access to information | 1.53 (1.22–1.92) | 2.53 (1.66–3.86) | inconclusive | inconclusive |
| Easy to discern origin of information | 1.61 (1.26–2.05) | 2.79 (1.74–4.46) | 1.51 (1.07–2.12) | 2.43 (1.04–5.71) |
| Ability to assess quality, reliability | 1.47 (1.16–1.87) | 1.86 (1.17–2.96) | inconclusive | inconclusive |
|
| ||||
| Satisfied with healthcare | 3.32 (2.11–5.24) | 7.81 (3.37–18.13) | 2.91 (1.60–5.30) | 3.04 (1.23–7.51) |
|
| ||||
| Vaccine hesitancy | inconclusive | inconclusive | 1.51 (1.18–1.92) | inconclusive |
Open survey responses regarding reported unwillingness to use a copper IUD: themes and categories.
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Themes | Categories | Sub-categories |
| Side effects ( | Established/common ( | General ( |
| Severe ( | ||
| Unspecific ( | ||
| Other ( | Perforation, displacement ( | |
| Cysts, ectopic pregnancy, fertility, damage to uterus or ovaries ( | ||
| Systemic/mental issues ( | ||
| Copper/ metal ( | ||
| Other issues ( | Expulsion ( | |
| Pregnancy ( | ||
| Endometriosis/PCOS ( | ||
| Foreign object ( | ||
| Feels unnatural ( | ||
| Men should also be responsible ( | ||
| Insufficient research/knowledge ( | ||
| Unspecific/Other ( | ||
| Sources | Other people ( | |
| Own experiences ( | ||
| Healthcare ( | ||
| Reading ( | ||
Open-survey responses regarding the copper IUD: themes and categories.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Themes | Categories | Sub-categories | |
| Attitudes | Positive ( | ||
| ( | Value-neutral ( | ||
| Negative/Ambivalent ( | Pros and cons ( | ||
| Established/common side | General ( | ||
| effects ( | Severe ( | ||
| Unspecific side effects ( | |||
| Other aspects ( | Pregnancy ( | ||
| Foreign object ( | |||
| Other side effects ( | Infections ( | ||
| Information, | Info/care worked well ( | ||
| knowledge and healthcare ( | Problematic aspects ( | Individual experience ( | Info insufficient ( |
| Wider issues ( | Lack of research, knowledge, support ( | ||
| Importance of better info, practice in healthcare ( | |||
| Sources | Own experience ( |