Contraception
Volume 78, Issue 2 , Pages 136-142 , August 2008

Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion

  • Suzan Goodman

      Affiliations

    • University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. University of California, San Francisco, CA 94110. Tel.: +1 415 202 4679; fax: +1 415 206 8387.
    • ,
  • Sarah K. Hendlish

      Affiliations

    • Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA
    • ,
  • Courtney Benedict

      Affiliations

    • Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA
    • ,
  • Matthew F. Reeves

      Affiliations

    • University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA
    • Magee-Women's Research Institute, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA
    • ,
  • Madeline Pera-Floyd

      Affiliations

    • Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA
    • ,
  • Anne Foster-Rosales

      Affiliations

    • University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
    • Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, San Francisco, CA 94109, USA

Received 4 August 2007 ,Revised 4 March 2008 ,Accepted 13 March 2008.

References 

  1. Grimes D. In:  Hatcher RA,  Trussell J,  Stewart F,  Nelson AL,  Cates W,  Guest F editor. Intrauterine Devices (IUDs), in Contraceptive Technology. Ch. 21:Ardent Media, Inc.: New York; 2004;p. 490–521
  2. Chiou CF, Trussell J, Reyes E, et al. Economic analysis of contraceptives for women. Contraception. 2003;68:3–10
  3. Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A, Abma JC, Willson SJ. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982–2002. Adv Data. 2004;350:1–35
  4. Association of Reproductive Health Professionals . New developments in intrauterine contraception. Clin Proc. 2004;1–20
  5. Paragard T380A [package insert] North Tonawand, NY: FEI Women's Health LLC; 2005.
  6. World Health Organization . Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2004;
  7. Forrest JD. U.S. women's perceptions of and attitudes about the IUD. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996;51(12 Suppl):S30–S34
  8. Stanwood NL, Bradley KA. Young pregnant women's knowledge of modern intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1417–1422
  9. Stanwood NL, Garrett JM, Konrad TR. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:275–280
  10. Faundes A, Telles E, Cristofoletti MDL, Faundes D, Castro S, Hardy E. The risk of inadvertent intrauterine device insertion in women carriers of endocervical Chlamydia trachomatis. Contraception. 1998;58:105–109
  11. Morrison CS, Sekadde-Kigondu C, Miller WC, Weiner DH, Sinei SK. Use of sexually transmitted disease risk assessment algorithms for selection of intrauterine device candidates. Contraception. 1999;59:97–106
  12. El-Tagy A, Sakr E, Sokal DC, Issa AH. Safety and acceptability of post-abortal IUD insertion and the importance of counseling. Contraception. 2003;67:229–234
  13. Ogawa OD, Sokoloff A, Reeves MF, Steinauer J, Darney PD, Drey EA. Postabortion insertion of intrauterine contraception in the first and second trimesters. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(4 Suppl):61S
  14. Ortayli N, Bulut A, Sahin T, Sivin I. Immediate postabortal contraception with the levonorgestrel intrauterine device, Norplant, and traditional methods. Contraception. 2001;63:309–314
  15. Reeves MF, Smith KJ, Creinin MD. Decision analysis of immediate versus delayed insertion of intra-uterine devices after abortion to prevent pregnancy. [Abstract] Contraception. 2005;72:237
  16. Mirena levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Wayne (NJ): Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; 2007;[package insert]
  17. Gocmen A, Demirpolat N, Aysin H. The efficacy of immediate post-abortion intrauterine device insertion. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2002;29:274–276
  18. Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Schulz KF, Stanwood N. Immediate post-abortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(4):CD001777
  19. Stanwood NL, Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device after induced or spontaneous abortion: a review of the evidence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:1168–1173
  20. Shea K. 2005. Personal communication regarding PPFA manual of medical standards and guidelines. 15 May, New York.
  21. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;2:CD001327
  22. Workowski KA, Berman SM. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2006;55(RR-11):1–94
  23. Goodman S, Hendlish SK, Reeves MF, Foster-Rosales A. Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78:143–148
  24. Lichtenberg ES, Shott S. A randomized clinical trial of prophylaxis for vacuum abortion: 3 versus 7 days of doxycycline. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:726–731
  25. Sawaya GF, Grady D, Kerlikowske K, Grimes DA. Antibiotics at the time of induced abortion: the case for universal prophylaxis based on a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87:884–890

☆ Financial support for this study was provided by FEI Women's Health (now DuraMed), producers of Paragard® T380A intrauterine copper contraceptive, who sponsored a Staff Training Pilot at Planned Parenthood Golden Gate (part of the intervention study). Ms. Hendlish is concurrently a research consultant for Berlex, Inc (now Bayer Health Care, Inc.), producers of Mirena® levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

PII: S0010-7824(08)00134-0

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.008

Contraception
Volume 78, Issue 2 , Pages 136-142 , August 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution