How do women and health care professionals view hormonal long-acting reversible contraception? Results from an international survey

References

• Sedgh G, Singh S, Hussain R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plann. 2014;45:301–314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng D, Schwarz EB, Douglas E, et al. Unintended pregnancy and associated maternal preconception, prenatal and postpartum behaviors. Contraception. 2009;79:194–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organisation. Safe and unsafe induced abortion. Global and regional levels in 2008, and trends during 1995–2008. WHO/RHR/12.02. 2012; [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/75174/1/WHO_RHR_12.02_eng.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McCrory C, McNally S. The effect of pregnancy intention on maternal prenatal behaviours and parent and child health: results of an Irish cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27:208–215.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellings K, Jones KG, Mercer CH. The prevalence of unplanned pregnancy and associated factors in Britain: findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). Lancet. 2013;382:1807–1816.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfferich C, Hessling A, Klindworth H, et al. Unintended pregnancy in the life-course perspective. Adv Life Course Res. 2014;21:74–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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
• Zolna M, Lindberg L. Unintended pregnancy: incidence and outcomes among young adult unmarried women in the United States, 2001 and 2008. Guttmacher Institute. 2012; [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/unintended-pregnancy-us-2001-2008.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. SF2.3: Age of mothers at childbirth and age-specific fertility. SF2.3. 2016; [cited 2018 Apr 27]. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/SF_2_3_Age_mothers_childbirth.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. Vital Health Stat 23. 2010;29:1–44.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Menken J, Trussell J, Larsen U. Age and infertility. Science. 1986;233:1389–1394.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Alkema L, et al. Global, regional, and subregional trends in unintended pregnancy and its outcomes from 1990 to 2014: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e380–e389.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Logan C, Holcombe E, Manlove J, et al. The consequences of unintended childbearing: a white paper. Washington, DC: Child Trends and National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Vol. 28; 2007; pp. 142–151.
   Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. Committee Opinion No. 642: increasing access to contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e44–e48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1998–2007.
   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
• Black A, Guilbert E, Co A, et al. Canadian Contraception Consensus (Part 1 of 4). J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37:936–942.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397–404.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhling KJ, Klovekorn L, Daniels B, et al. Contraceptive counselling and self-prescription of contraceptives of German gynaecologists: results of a nationwide survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19:448–456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ihongbe TO, Masho SW. Changes in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. nulliparous women: results from the 2006–2010, 2011–2013, and 2013–2015 National Survey of Family Growth. J Womens Health. 2018;27:245–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansour D. International survey to assess women’s attitudes regarding choice of daily versus nondaily female hormonal contraception. Int J Womens Health 2014;6:367–375.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hladky KJ, Allsworth JE, Madden T, et al. Women’s knowledge about intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:48–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Potter J, Rubin SE, Sherman P. Fear of intrauterine contraception among adolescents in New York City. Contraception. 2014;89:446–450.
   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.e1–115.e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joshi R, Khadilkar S, Patel M. Global trends in use of long-acting reversible and permanent methods of contraception: seeking a balance. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;131:S60–S63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 450: increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1424–1428.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Long-acting reversible contraception. Clinical Guideline CG30. 2014; [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from:https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg30/resources/longacting-reversible-contraception-pdf-975379839685
   Google Scholar
• Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare. Intrauterine Contraception, 2015; [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: http://www.fsrh.org/pdfs/CEUGuidanceIntrauterineContraception.pdf
   Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 5th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Black A, Guilbert E, Costescu D, et al. Canadian contraception consensus (part 3 of 4): Chapter 7 – intrauterine contraception. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2016;38:182–222.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Adolescence. Contraception for adolescents. Pediatrics. 2014;134:e1244–e1256.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benacerraf BR, Shipp TD, Lyons JG, et al. Width of the normal uterine cavity in premenopausal women and effect of parity. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:305–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipp TD, Bromley B, Benacerraf BR. The width of the uterine cavity is narrower in patients with an embedded intrauterine device (IUD) compared to a normally positioned IUD. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29:1453–1456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Schellschmidt I, Apter D. A randomized, phase II study describing the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive systems and Mirena. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:616–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer Healthcare. Jaydess. Summary of product characteristics. 2017. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/5297
   Google Scholar
• Merki-Feld GS, Caetano C, Porz TC, et al. Are there unmet needs in contraceptive counselling and choice? Findings of the European TANCO study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23:183–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden T, Allsworth JE, Hladky KJ, et al. Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists’ knowledge and attitudes. Contraception. 2010;81:112–116.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin SE, Fletcher J, Stein T, et al. Underuse of the IUD in contraceptive care and training. Fam Med. 2010;42:387–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black KI, Lotke P, Lira J, et al. Global survey of healthcare practitioners’ beliefs and practices around intrauterine contraceptive method use in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2013;88:650–656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spiedel J, Harper CC, Shiedls WC. The potential of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2008;78:197–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrison LP, Jr., Neumann PJ, Erickson P, et al. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: the ISPOR Real-World Data Task Force report. Value Health. 2007;10:326–335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ABPI. The vision for real world data – harnessing the opportunities in the UK. 2011; [cited 2018 Jun 18]. Available from: http://www.abpi.org.uk/media/1378/vision-for-real-world-data.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Berger ML, Sox H, Willke RJ, et al. Good practices for real-world data studies of treatment and/or comparative effectiveness: recommendations from the Joint ISPOR-ISPE Special Task Force on Real-World Evidence in Health Care Decision Making. Value Health. 2017;20:1003–1008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikinheimo O, Bitzer J, García Rodríguez L. Real-world research and the role of observational data in the field of gynaecology – a practical review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:250–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J. Contraceptive method use in the United States: trends and characteristics between 2008, 2012 and 2014. Contraception. 2018;97:14–21.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Henry N, Hassan F, et al. Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception. 2013;87:154–161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law A, Pilon D, Lynen R, et al. Retrospective analysis of the impact of increasing access to long acting reversible contraceptives in a commercially insured population. Reprod Health. 2016;13:96.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:1105–1113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bayer Healthcare. Mirena. Summary of product characteristics. 2018. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/1132
   Google Scholar
• Chebet JJ, McMahon SA, Greenspan JA. Every method seems to have its problems – perspectives on side effects of hormonal contraceptives in Morogoro Region, Tanzania. BMC Women’s Health. 2015;15:97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asker C, Stokes-Lampard H, Bevan J, et al. What is it about intrauterine devices that women find unacceptable? Factors that make women non-users: a qualitative study. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2006;32:89–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gedeon Richter (UK) Ltd. Levosert. Summary of product characteristics. 2019. [cited 2019 Feb 19]. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/30120
   Google Scholar
• Apter D, Briggs P, Tuppurainen M, et al. A 12-month multicenter, randomized study comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with the etonogestrel subdermal implant. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:151–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgatta L, Buhling KJ, Rybowski S, et al. A multicentre, open-label, randomised phase III study comparing a new levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system (LNG-IUS 8) with combined oral contraception in young women of reproductive age. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2016;21:372–379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podolskyi V, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Marions L. Contraceptive experience and perception, a survey among Ukrainian women. BMC Women’s Health. 2018;18:159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hellstrom A, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Kopp Kallner H. Trends in use and attitudes towards contraception in Sweden: results of a nationwide survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2010;24:154–160.
   Google Scholar