Risk factors and the choice of long-acting reversible contraception following medical abortion: effect on subsequent induced abortion and unwanted pregnancy

References

• Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:843–852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 2010;23:1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Heikinheimo O, Gissler M, Suhonen S. Age, parity, history of abortion and contraceptive choices affect the risk of repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78:149–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sedgh G, Bearak J, Singh S, et al. Abortion incidence between 1990 and 2014: global, regional, and subregional levels and trends. Lancet. 2016;388:258–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gissler M, Fronteira I, Jahn A, et al. Terminations of pregnancy in the European Union. Bjog. 2012;119:324–332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Welfare. Official Statistics of Finland. Induced Abortions 2015 [Internet]. Published Oct 2016. [cited 2017 Oct 26]. Available from: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2016102025429
   Google Scholar
• Rose SB, Stanley J, Lawton BA. Time to second abortion or continued pregnancy following a first abortion: a retrospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:214–221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pohjoranta E, Mentula M, Gissler M, et al. Provision of intrauterine contraception in association with first trimester induced abortion reduces the need of repeat abortion: first-year results of a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2539–2546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorp JM Jr, Hartmann KE, Shadigian E. Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence. Obstetr Gynecol Surv. 2003;58:67–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saccone G, Perriera L, Berghella V. Prior uterine evacuation of pregnancy as independent risk factor for preterm birth: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:572–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kc S, Gissler M, Virtanen SM, et al. Risks of adverse perinatal outcomes after repeat terminations of pregnancy by their methods: a nationwide register-based cohort study in Finland 1996-2013. Paediatric Perinatal Epidemiol. 2017;31,485–492.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templeton A, Grimes DA. Clinical practice. A request for abortion. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2198–2204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Induced abortion. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1160–1169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron ST, Glasier A, Chen ZE, et al. Effect of contraception provided at termination of pregnancy and incidence of subsequent termination of pregnancy. Bjog. 2012;119:1074–1080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SB, Lawton BA. Impact of long-acting reversible contraception on return for repeat abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:37.e1–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korjamo R, Mentula M, Heikinheimo O. Immediate vs. delayed initiation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system following medical termination of pregnancy – one year continuation rates: a randomised controlled trial. Bjog. 2017;124:1957–1964.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langston AM, Joslin-Roher SL, Westhoff CL. Immediate postabortion access to IUDs, implants and DMPA reduces repeat pregnancy within 1 year in a New York City practice. Contraception. 2014;89:103–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langston AM, Rosario L, Westhoff CL. Structured contraceptive counseling–a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Counsel. 2010;81:362–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden T, Secura GM, Allsworth JE, et al. Comparison of contraceptive method chosen by women with and without a recent history of induced abortion. Contraception. 2011;84:571–577.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secura GM, Madden T, McNicholas C, et al. Provision of no-cost, long-acting contraception and teenage pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1316–1323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peipert JF, Madden T, Allsworth JE, et al. Preventing unintended pregnancies by providing no-cost contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1291–1297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krashin JW, Stuart GS, Garrett J, et al. Contraception insurance coverage and receipt of long-acting reversible contraception or depot medroxyprogesterone acetate on the day of abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130:109–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secura GM, Allsworth JE, Madden T, et al. The contraceptive CHOICE project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:115.e1–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okusanya BO, Oduwole O, Effa EE. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;7:Cd001777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rose SB, Garrett SM, Stanley J. Immediate postabortion initiation of levonorgestrel implants reduces the incidence of births and abortions at 2 years and beyond. Contraception. 2015;92:17–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raymond EG, Weaver MA, Tan YL, et al. Effect of immediate compared with delayed insertion of etonogestrel implants on medical abortion efficacy and repeat pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127:306–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hognert H, Kopp Kallner H, Cameron S, et al. Immediate versus delayed insertion of an etonogestrel releasing implant at medical abortion-a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2484–2490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron ST, Berugoda N, Johnstone A, et al. Assessment of a ‘fast-track’ referral service for intrauterine contraception following early medical abortion. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2012;38:175–178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saav I, Stephansson O, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Early versus delayed insertion of intrauterine contraception after medical abortion – a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korjamo R, Mentula M, Heikinheimo O. Fast-track vs. delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after early medical abortion – a randomized trial. Contraception. 2017;96:344–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korjamo R, Mentula M, Heikinheimo O. Expulsions and adverse events following immediate and later insertion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system after medical termination of late first and second trimester pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2017;124:1965–1972.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Working group set up by the Finnish Medical Society Duodecim and the Finnish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Induced abortion [Internet]. Current Care Guidelines. The Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. 2013. [cited 2017 Oct 26]. Available from: http://kaypahoito.fi/web/english/guidelineabstracts/guideline?id=ccs00034
   Google Scholar
• Heino A, Niinimaki M, Mentula M, et al. How reliable are health registers? Registration of induced abortions and sterilizations in Finland. Informatics for Health & Social Care. 2017. DOI:10.1080/17538157.2017.1297306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gissler M, Ulander VM, Hemminki E, et al. Declining induced abortion rate in Finland: data quality of the Finnish abortion register. Int J Epidemiol. 1996;25:376–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mentula MJ, Niinimaki M, Suhonen S, et al. Young age and termination of pregnancy during the second trimester are risk factors for repeat second-trimester abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203:107.e1–107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron ST, Riddell J, Brown A, et al. Characteristics of women who present for abortion towards the end of the mid-trimester in Scotland: national audit 2013-2014. Eur J Contrcept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21:183–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• St John H, Critchley H, Glasier A. Can we identify women at risk of more than one termination of pregnancy? Contraception. 2005;71:31–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birgisson NE, Zhao Q, Secura GM, et al. Preventing unintended pregnancy: the contraceptive CHOICE project in review. J Women’s Health (2002). 2015;24:349–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suggestion to Helsinki community to offer free-of-cost contraception to women under 25 years [Internet] 2017 [cited 2017 Oct 4]. Available from: https://www.kuntalaisaloite.fi/fi/aloite/2161
   Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Welfare. Official Statistics of Finland. Induced Abortions 2013 [Internet]. Published Oct 2014. [cited 2017 Oct 26]. Available from: http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2014101645230
   Google Scholar
• A, Heino National Institute for Health and Welfare, personal communication (March 26, 2016).
   Google Scholar
• Pohjoranta E, Suhonen S, Heikinheimo O. Attendance at post-abortal follow-up visits is low – can the risks of non-attendance be identified? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90:543–546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden T, Westhoff C. Rates of follow-up and repeat pregnancy in the 12 months after first-trimester induced abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:663–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar