A review of barriers and myths preventing the more widespread use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women

References

• Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Contraceptive use among U.S. women having abortions in 2000–2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:294–303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreau C, Trussell J, Rodriguez G, et al. Contraceptive failure rates in France: Results from a population-based survey. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2422–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland J, Bernstein S, Ezeh A, et al. Family planning: The unfinished agenda. Lancet 2006;368:1810–27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moos MK, Bartholomew NE, Lohr KN. Counseling in the clinical setting to prevent unintended pregnancy: An evidence-based research agenda. Contraception 2003;67:115–32.
   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; 114:1434–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wulf D, Donovan P. Women and societies benefit when childbearing is planned. Issues Brief (Alan Guttmacher Inst) 2002;3:1–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC 2009. Accessed 3 April 2012 from: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearch Priorities.aspx
   Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 121: Long-acting reversible contraception: Implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:184–96.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mavranezouli I, LARC Guideline Development Group. The cost-effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraceptive methods in the UK: Analysis based on a decision-analytic model developed for a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) clinical practice guideline. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1338–45.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trussell J, Lalla AM, Doan QV, et al. Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States. Contraception 2009;79:5–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. World contraceptive use, 2011. Accessed April 2011 from: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/contraceptive2011/contraceptive2011.htm
   Google Scholar
• Finer LB, Zolner MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception 2011;84:478–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richters J, Grulich AE, de Visser RO, et al. Sex in Australia: Contraceptive practices among a representative sample of women. Aust N Z J Public Health 2003;27:210–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimes D. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet 2000;356:1013–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne K. Medical records in litigation: The Dalkon Shield story. AMRO 1992;32:11–4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stubbs E, Schamp A. The evidence is in. Why are IUDs still out?: Family physicians' perceptions of risk and indications. Can Fam Physician 2008;54:560–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 4th edn. Geneva: WHO 2010. Accessed 12 April 2012 from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/mec.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MacIsaac L, Espey E. Intrauterine contraception: The pendulum swings back. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2007;34:91–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanwood NL. Garrett JM. Konrad TR. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: A survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:275–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyus R. Lohr P, Prager S, Board of the Society of Family Planning. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception 2010;81:367–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen RH, Goldberg AB, Grimes DA. Expanding access to intrauterine contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:456.e1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Middleton AJ, Naish J, Singer N. General practitioners’ views on the use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in young, nulligravid women, in London, UK. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2011;16:311–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harper CC, Blum M, de Bocanegra HT, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:1359–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farley TM, Rosenberg MJ. Rowe PJ, et al. Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease: An international perspective. Lancet 1992;339:785–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, et al. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 2001;345:561–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh T, Grimes D, Frezieres R, et al. Randomised controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics before insertion of intrauterine devices. IUD Study Group. Lancet 1998;351:1005–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinei SK, Schulz KF, Lamptey PR, et al. Preventing IUCD-related pelvic infection: The efficacy of prophylactic doxycycline at insertion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990;97:412–19.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Grimes DA, Schulz KF, Antibiotic prophylaxis for intrauterine contraceptive device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;(2):CD001327.
   Google Scholar
• Skjeldestad FE, Halvorsen LE, Kahn H, et al. IUD users in Norway are at low risk for genital C. trachomatis infection. Contraception 1996;54:209–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James NJ, Wilson S, Hughes S. A pilot study to incorporate chlamydial testing in the management of women anticipating IUD insertion in community clinics. Br J Fam Plann 1997;23:16–19.
   Google Scholar
• Pap-Akeson M, Solheim F, Thorbert G, et al. Genital tract infections associated with the intrauterine contraceptive device can be reduced by inserting the threads into the uterine cavity. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1992;99:676–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faundes A, Telles E, Cristofoletti ML, et al. The risk of inadvertent intrauterine device insertion in women carriers of endocervical Chlamydia trachomatis. Contraception 1998;58:105–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;77:261–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin SE, Fletcher J, Stein T, et al. Determinants of intrauterine contraception provision among US family physicians: A national survey of knowledge, attitudes and practice. Contraception 2011;83:472–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vessey MP. Contraception for women. Intrauterine devices and ectopic pregnancy. BMJ 2009;339:b3864.
   Google Scholar
• Xiong X, Buekens P, Wollast E. IUD use and the risk of ectopic pregnancy: A metaanalysis of case-control studies. Contraception 1995;52:23–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skjeldestad FE. How effectively do copper intrauterine devices prevent ectopic pregnancy? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997;76:684–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen KR, Brooks L, Jacobsen B, Skouby SO. Intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Adv Contracept 1991;7:333–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhou L, Harrison-Woolrych M, Coulter DM. Use of the New Zealand Intensive Medicines Monitoring Programme to study the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (Mirena). Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003;12:371–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahamondes MV, Hidalgo MM, Bahamondes L, Monteiro I. Ease of insertion and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in nulligravidas. Contraception 2011;84:e11–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Marions L, Lovkvist L, Taube A, et al. Use of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system in nulliparous women–a non-interventional study in Sweden. Eur J Contracep Reprod Health Care 2011;16:126–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suhonen S, Haukkamaa M, Jakobsson T, Rauramo I. Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: A comparative study. Contraception 2004;69:407–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubacher D, Reyes V, Lillo S, et al. Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: Randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1272–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saav I, Aronsson A, Marions L, et al. Cervical priming with sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device in nulliparous women: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2647–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen RH. Bartz D, Grimes DA, et al. Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(3):CD007373.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caliskan E, Ozturk N, Dilbaz BO, Dilbaz S. Analysis of risk factors associated with uterine perforation by intrauterine devices . Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2003;8:150–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Ryde-Blomqvist E, Lindell K, et al. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception 1998;57:251–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison-Woolrych M, Ashton J. Coulter D. Uterine perforation on intrauterine device insertion: Is the incidence higher than previously reported? Contraception 2003;67:53–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brockmeyer A, Kishen M, Webb A. Experience of IUD/IUS insertions and clinical performance in nulliparous women – a pilot study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008;13:248–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldhuis HM, Vos AG, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Complications of the intrauterine device in nulliparous and parous women. Eur J Gen Pract 2004;10:82–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Madden T, McNicholas C, Secura G, et al. Rates of continuation and expulsion of intrauterine contraception at 12 months in nulliparous and adolescent women. Contraception 2010;82:187–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivin I. IUDs are contraceptives, not abortifacients: A comment on research and belief. Stud Fam Plann 1989;20:355–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hubacher D. The checkered history and bright future of intrauterine contraception in the United States. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2002;34:98–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rivera R. Yacobson I, Grimes D. The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181(5 Pt 1):1263–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. Mechanism of action, safety and efficacy of intrauterine devices. Report of a WHO Scientific Group. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1987;753:1–91.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Armstrong EG, et al. Urinary human chorionic gonadotropin among intrauterine device users: Detection with a highly specific and sensitive assay. Fertil Steril 1987;47:265–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Wehmann RE, et al. Measuring early pregnancy loss: Laboratory and field methods. Fertil Steril 1985;44:366–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oritz ME, Croxatto HB. Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: Biological bases of their mechanism of action. Contraception 2007;75(suppl.):S16–S30.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis RA, Taylor D, Natavio MF, et al. Effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system on cervical mucus quality and sperm penetrability. Contraception 2010;82:491–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulman L, Hess HM, Arias R, et al. Expert Roundtable. Intrauterine contraception: Patient and clinician considerations. OBG Management 2009;July(Supplement):S1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Stanford JB, Mikolajczyk RT. Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: Update and estimation of postfertilization effects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187: 1699–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canavan TP. Appropriate use of the intrauterine device. Am Fam Phys 1998;58:2077–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiou C-F, Trussell J, Reyes E, et al. Economic analysis of contraceptives for women. Contraception 2003;68:3–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses zur Empfängnisregelung und zum Schwangerschaftsabbruch. 2011. Accessed 3 April 2012 from: http://www.kvwl.de/arzt/recht/kbv/richtlinien/richtl_empfaengnis.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Long-acting reversible contraception – the effective and appropriate use of long-acting reversible contraception. 2005. Accessed 12 April 2012 from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10974/29912/29912.pdf)
   Google Scholar
• Castellsague X, Diaz M, Vaccarella S, et al. Intrauterine device use, cervical infection with human papillomavirus, and risk of cervical cancer: A pooled analysis of 26 epidemiological studies. Lancet Oncology 2011;12:1023–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming KL, Sokoloff A, Raine TR. Attitudes and beliefs about the intrauterine device among teenagers and young women. Contraception 2010;82:178–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitaker AK, Johnson LM, Harwood B, et al. Adolescent and young adult women’s knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device. Contraception 2008;78:211–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin SE, Winrob I. Urban female family medicine patients’ perceptions about intrauterine contraception. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2010;19:735–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bateson D, Harvey C, Williams J, Black KI. Intrauterine contraception: Why are so few Australian women using this effective method? Med J Aust 2011;194:324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hladky K, Allsworth J, Madden T, et al. Women’s knowledge about intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:48–54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peipert J, Zhao Q, Allsworth J, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1105–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nilsson CG, Luukkainen T, Diaz J, Allonen H. Clinical performance of a new levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. A randomized comparison with a Nova-T-copper device. Contraception 1982;25:345–56.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Odlind V, Rybo G. Levonorgestrel-releasing and copper-releasing (Nova T) IUDs during five years of use: A randomized comparative trial. Contraception 1994;49:56–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teal SB, Sheeder J. IUD use in adolescent mothers: Retention, failure and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception 2012;85:270–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kittur ND, Secura GM, Peipert JF, et al. Comparison of contraceptive use between the Contraceptive CHOICE Project and state and national data. Contraception 2011;83:479–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. Use of intrauterine contraception in the United States. ARHP Clinical Proceedings: New Developments in intrauterine contraception September 2004:3–6.
   Google Scholar