Original research article| Volume 75, ISSUE 3, P177-184, March 2007

Download started.


Intrauterine contraception: evaluation of clinician practice patterns in Kaiser Permanente Northern California



      Despite the medical evidence, few women of reproductive age in the United States use intrauterine contraception (IUC) in comparison with women worldwide. To reduce cost as a barrier, Kaiser Permanente removed the cost to the patient for IUC throughout California in 2002. The goal of this study was to evaluate whether providing evidence-based information about IUC would result in changes in the knowledge, attitudes and practice patterns of clinicians and in greater IUC utilization as compared with removing cost alone.

      Study Design

      A comprehensive education intervention was conducted in half of Kaiser Permanente Northern California ob-gyn departments. To make comparisons between the intervention and comparison sites, we surveyed clinicians in both groups before and after the intervention about their IUC knowledge, attitudes as well as practice patterns and collected utilization data for 27 months.


      Statistically significant changes in attitudes and practice patterns were reported by the intervention group as compared with the usual care comparison group. By the end of the study, change in IUC utilization was significantly greater in the intervention group (utilization rate=9.57/1000) as compared with the comparison group (utilization rate=7.35/1000) (p=.02).


      A multifaceted approach to providing evidence-based clinician and patient education resulted in statistically significant reported changes in attitudes and practice patterns and in greater IUC utilization as compared with usual practice.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Contraception
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


      1. Porter M, Teisberg EO. Redefining competition in health care. Harv Bus Rev 2004;82:64���76,136.

        • Berwick D.M.
        Disseminating innovations in health care.
        JAMA. 2003; 289: 1969-1975
        • Dopson S.
        • Fitzgerald L.
        • Ferlie E.
        • et al.
        No magic targets! Changing clinical practice to become more evidence based.
        Health Care Manage Rev. 2002; 27: 35-47
        • Gruman J.
        • Follock M.
        Putting evidence into practice. Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research, NIH 1997.
        (Available from) ([accessed 3/6/06])
        • Davis D.A.
        • Thompson M.A.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • et al.
        Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies.
        JAMA. 1995; 274: 700-705
        • Bero L.A.
        • Grilli R.
        • Grimshaw J.M.
        • et al.
        Getting research findings into practice: closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings.
        BMJ. 1998; 317: 465-468
      2. Family Planning Worldwide Data Sheet, 2002. Population Reference Bureau.
        (Available at) ([accessed 3/6/06])
      3. Mosher WD, Martinez GM, Chandra A. et al. Use of contraception and use of family planning services in the United States: 1982���2002. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg.htm [accsessed 6/18/06]. Advance data from Vital and Health Statistics, USDHHS, CDC, 350(2004)1���35.

        • Trussell J.
        • Leveque J.A.
        • Koenig J.D.
        • et al.
        The economic value of contraception; a comparison of 15 methods.
        Am J Public Health. 1995; 85: 494-503
        • Hatcher R.A.
        • Trussell J.
        • Stewart F.
        • et al.
        Contraceptive technology.
        18th ed. NY Ardent Media Inc, New York, NY2004
      4. Summary of changes from the first edition of WHO medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use.
        Contracep Rept. 2001; 12: 12-14
        • Hicks D.
        What risk of infection with IUD use?.
        Lancet. 1998; 351: 1222-1223
        • Darney P.
        Time to pardon the IUD?.
        N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 608
        • Duenas J.L.
        • Albert A.
        • Carrasco F.
        Intrauterine contraception in nulligravid vs parous women.
        Contraception. 1996; 53: 23-24
        • Farley T.
        • Rosenberg M.
        • Rowe P.J.
        • et al.
        Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: an international perspective.
        Lancet. 1992; 339: 785-788
        • Sivin I.
        • Stern J.
        Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20 ��g/d and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: a multicenter study.
        Fertil Steril. 1994; 61: 70-77
        • Toivonen J.
        • Luukkainen T.
        • Allonen H.
        Protective effect of intrauterine release of levonorgestrel on pelvic infection: three years' comparative experience of levonorgestrel- and copper-releasing intrauterine devices.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 77: 261-264
        • Forrest J.D.
        U.S. women's perception of and attitudes about the IUD.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996; 51: S30-S34
        • Gordon N.P.
        Kaiser Permanente Member Health Survey, 2002.
        ([accessed 6/01/06])
        • Kooiker C.H.
        • Scutchfield F.D.
        Barriers to prescribing the copper T 380A intrauterine device by physicians.
        West J Med. 1990; 153: 279-282
        • Stanwood N.
        • Garrett J.
        • Konrad T.
        Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 99: 275-280