Satisfaction and continuation with LNG-IUS 12: findings from the real-world kyleena^® satisfaction study

References

• Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83(5):397–404.
   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(21):1998–2007.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Finer LB. Changes in use of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods among U.S. women, 2009–2012. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(5):917–927.
   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(Suppl 1):S60–S63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Agostini A, Godard C, Laurendeau C, et al. Two year continuation rates of contraceptive methods in France: a cohort study from the french national health insurance database. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2018;23(6):421–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindh I, Skjeldestad FE, Gemzell-Danielsson K, et al. Contraceptive use in the nordic countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017;96(1):19–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. Contraceptive use by method 2019. Data booklet. 2019 [cited 2020 Nov 3]. Available from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/files/documents/2020/Jan/un_2019_contraceptiveusebymethod_databooklet.pdf.
   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(2):115.e1–115.e7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hladky KJ, Allsworth JE, Madden T, et al. Women's knowledge about intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(1):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(5):446–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brima N, Akintomide H, Iguyovwe V, et al. A comparison of the expected and actual pain experienced by women during insertion of an intrauterine contraceptive device. Open Access J Contracept. 2015;6:21–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoun J, Dines VA, Stovall DW, et al. Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(3):585–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg DL, Schreiber CA, Turok DK, et al.; ACCESS IUS Investigators. Three-year efficacy and safety of a new 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Contraception. 2015;92(1):10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. The effect of age, parity and body mass index on the efficacy, safety, placement and user satisfaction associated with two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: subgroup analyses of data from a phase III trial. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0135309.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohr PA, Lyus R, Prager S. Use of intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2017;95(6):529–537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1105–1113.
   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(3):616–622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson AL, Apter D, Hauck B, et al. Two low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive systems: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(6):1205–1213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(3):183–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckert V, Aqua K, Bechtel C, et al. Insertion experience of women and health care professionals in the kyleena® satisfaction study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2020;25(3):182–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gemzell-Danielsson K, Apter D, Dermout S, et al. Evaluation of a new, low-dose levonorgestrel intrauterine contraceptive system over 5 years of use. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:22–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;22:5–55.
   Google Scholar
• Liu Y, Nickleach DC, Zhang C, et al. Carrying out streamlined routine data analyses with reports for observational studies: introduction to a series of generic SAS® macros. F1000Res. 2018;7:1955.
   PubMedGoogle 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(5):650–656.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhling KJ, Hauck B, Dermout S, et al. Understanding the barriers and myths limiting the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: results of a survey of european/canadian healthcare providers. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;183:146–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davie JE, Walling MR, Mansour DJ, et al. Impact of patient counseling on acceptance of the levonorgestrel implant contraceptive in the United Kingdom. Clin Ther. 1996;18(1):150–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Modesto W, Bahamondes MV, Bahamondes L. A randomized clinical trial of the effect of intensive versus non-intensive counselling on discontinuation rates due to bleeding disturbances of three long-acting reversible contraceptives. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1393–1399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali MM, Cleland J, Shah IH. Causes and consequences of contraceptive discontinuation: evidence from 60 demographic and health surveys. 2012. [cited 2020 Jul 10]. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/family_planning/9789241504058/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Goldthwaite LM, Creinin MD. Comparing bleeding patterns for the levonorgestrel 52 mg, 19.5 mg, and 13.5 mg intrauterine systems. Contraception. 2019;100(2):128–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dickerson LM, Diaz VA, Jordon J, et al. Satisfaction, early removal, and side effects associated with long-acting reversible contraception. Fam Med. 2013;45(10):701–707.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg E, Bateson D, McGeechan K, et al. A three-year comparative study of continuation rates, bleeding patterns and satisfaction in australian women using a subdermal contraceptive implant or progestogen releasing-intrauterine system. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2014;19(1):5–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes L, Brache V, Meirik O, et al. A 3-year multicentre randomized controlled trial of etonogestrel- and levonorgestrel-releasing contraceptive implants, with non-randomized matched copper-intrauterine device controls. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(11):2527–2538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diedrich JT, Desai S, Zhao Q, et al. Association of short-term bleeding and cramping patterns with long-acting reversible contraceptive method satisfaction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(1):50.e1–50.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateson D, Harvey C, Trinh L, et al. User characteristics, experiences and continuation rates of copper intrauterine device use in a cohort of australian women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;56(6):655–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstuck ND. Reducing barriers to the use of the intrauterine contraceptive device as a long acting reversible contraceptive. Afr J Reprod Health. 2014;18(4):15–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauck B, Costescu D. Barriers and misperceptions limiting widespread use of intrauterine contraception among canadian women. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2015;37(7):606–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenstock JR, Peipert JF, Madden T, et al. Continuation of reversible contraception in teenagers and young women. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:1298–1305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherman RE, Anderson SA, Dal Pan GJ, et al. Real-world evidence - What Is It and What Can It Tell Us? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2293–2297.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(8):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(4):250–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar