Contraception
Volume 82, Issue 2 , Pages 178-182 , August 2010

Attitudes and beliefs about the intrauterine device among teenagers and young women

  • Kendra L. Fleming

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente, Vallejo, CA 94589, USA
    • ,
  • Abby Sokoloff

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
    • ,
  • Tina R. Raine

      Affiliations

    • Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, San Francisco General Hospital-6D, UCSF, 1001 Potrero, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA. Tel.: +1 415 206 4692; fax: +1 415 206 3112.

Received 4 July 2009 ,Revised 5 January 2010 ,Accepted 24 February 2010.

References 

  1. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ, Births: preliminary data for 2007. Natl Vital Stat Rep, Web Release; 57 no 12, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Released March 18, 2009.
  2. Darroch JE, Singh S, Frost JJ, Differences in teenage pregnancy rates among five developed countries: the roles of sexual activity and contraceptive use. Fam Plann Perspect 2001; 33:244–50, 281.
  3. Finer LB, Henshaw SK. Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2006;38:90–96
  4. Zibners A, Cromer BA, Hayes J. Comparison of continuation rates for hormonal contraception among adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 1999;12:90–94
  5. World Health Organization . Intrauterine devices. In: Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use. 3rd ed. Geneva: WHO; 2004;p. 99–122
  6. Intrauterine device and adolescents. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 392. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:1493–1495
  7. Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1359–1369
  8. 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;350:1–36
  9. Stanwood NL, Bradley KA. Young pregnant women's knowledge of modern intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1417–1422
  10. Whitaker AK, Johnson LM, Harwood B, Chiappetta L, Creinin MD, Gold MA. Adolescent and young adult women's knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device. Contraception. 2008;78:211–217
  11. Farley TM, Rosenburg MJ, Rowe PJ, Chen JH, Meirik O. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective. Lancet. 1992;339:785–788
  12. Grimes DA. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet. 2000;356:1013–1019
  13. Ott MA, Adler NE, Millstein SG, Tschann JM, Ellen JM. The trade-off between hormonal contraceptives and condoms among adolescents. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2002;34:6–14

☆ There was no funding source for this study.

PII: S0010-7824(10)00064-8

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.020

Contraception
Volume 82, Issue 2 , Pages 178-182 , August 2010

Article Tools