“No other contraceptive method has undergone so rapid and thorough a change of medical
reputation as that experienced by intrauterine devices over the past few years” [
[1]
]. These words from United States-based contraceptive researcher Christopher Tietze
in 1966 also characterize the last 10 years in the United States.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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to ContraceptionAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Contraception with intrauterine devices. 1959–1966.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966; 96: 1043-1054
- Renewed interest in intrauterine contraception in the United States: evidence and explanation.Contraception. 2011; 83: 291-294
- Intrauterine devices and reproductive health: American women in feast and famine.Contraception. 2004; 69: 437-446
- Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014.Contraception. 2018; 97: 14-21
- Contraceptive utilization: United States.Vital Health Stat 23. 1979; : 1-48
- Contraceptive utilization: United States, 1976.Vital Health Stat 23. 1981; : 1-58
- Use of intrauterine contraceptive devices in the United States.in: Advance Data From Vital and Health Statistics. National Center for Health Statistics, Hyattsville, Maryland1978 ([Number 43])
- Trends in contraceptive practice: United States, 1965–76.Vital Health Stat 23. 1982; : 1-47
- United States: methods of fertility control, 1955, 1960, & 1965.Stud Fam Plan. 1967; 17: 1-5
- Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008.Vital Health Stat 23. 2010; : 1-44
- The rise and fall and rise of the IUD.Am J Gynecol Health. 1989; 3: 6-10
- Intrauterine contraception: the pendulum swings back.Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2007; 34 (ix): 91-111
- Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.(Available from:)http://www.choiceproject.wustl.edu/Date accessed: March 20, 2018
- Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: long-acting reversible contraception practices and education.Contraception. 2014; 89: 578-583
- Factors influencing the provision of long-acting reversible contraception in California.Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 593-602
- The impact of the Affordable Care Act on contraceptive use and costs among privately insured women.Womens Health Issues. 2018; 28: 219-223
- Impact of the federal contraceptive coverage guarantee on out-of-pocket payments for contraceptives: 2014 update.Contraception. 2015; 91: 44-48
- Social media and the intrauterine device: a YouTube content analysis.J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2017-101799
- #HayleysIUD Sparks Conversation and Controversy on Twitter.(Available from:)https://www.onemedical.com/blog/newsworthy/hayleysiud/Date accessed: March 20, 2018
- Bedsider.(Available from:)https://www.bedsider.org/Date accessed: March , 2018
- The medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive-aged women.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 31-44
- Characteristics of women in the United States who use long-acting reversible contraceptive methods.Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 1349-1357
- Pregnancy outcomes associated with extended use of the 52-mg 20 mug/day levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system beyond 60 months: a chart review of 776 women in Brazil.Contraception. 2018; 97: 205-209
- Use of the etonogestrel implant and levonorgestrel intrauterine device beyond the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved duration.Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 599-604
- Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. women, 2009–2012.Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126: 917-927
- Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review.Contraception. 2014; 89: 162-173
- Popularity disparity: attitudes about the IUD in Europe and the United States.(Available from:)https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2007/11/popularity-disparity-attitudes-about-iud-europe-and-united-statesDate accessed: March 2, 2018
- A database of privately and publicly funded clinical studies conducted around the world.(Available from:)https://clinicaltrials.gov/Date accessed: February 6, 2018
- Mona Lisa NT Cu380 Mini NCT03124160.(Available from:)https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT03124160&cntry=&state=&city=&distDate accessed: February 27, 2018
- VeraCept NCT02446821.(Available from:)https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02446821?term=NCT02446821&rank=1Date accessed: February 27, 2018
- LevoCept NCT02882191.(Available from:)https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02882191?term=NCT02882191&rank=1Date accessed: February 27, 2018
- A comparative randomized study of three different IUDs in nulliparous Mexican women.Contraception. 2003; 67: 273-276
- Copper intrauterine device use by nulliparous women: review of side effects.Contraception. 2007; 75: S8-11
- A randomized comparison of a novel nitinol-frame low-dose-copper intrauterine contraceptive and a copper T380S intrauterine contraceptive.Contraception. 2017; 95: 544-548
- Contraceptive features preferred by women at high risk of unintended pregnancy.Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2012; 44: 194-200
- The sexual acceptability of contraception: reviewing the literature and building a new concept.J Sex Res. 2016; 53: 417-456
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 26, 2018
Accepted:
May 19,
2018
Received in revised form:
May 15,
2018
Received:
March 30,
2018
Footnotes
☆D.H. has served on Scientific Advisory Boards for Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals and OCON Medical. For past research, he received product donations from Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. M.K reports no potential conflicts of interest.
☆☆The findings and opinions presented are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of FHI 360 or the Guttmacher Institute.
Identification
Copyright
© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
