Lira-Plascencia JJ, Marín-Cantú VA, Bahamondes L, Orejuela-Martín R, Kosoy G

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 433-412
PDF size: 361.63 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objetive: To identify the perception of Latin American doctors about the knowledge, use, motivators and obstacles related to the use of intrauterine contraceptives, particularly in nulliparous women.
Material and Method: Prospective study type survey via internet directed to gynecologists or general practitioners chosen randomly from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico.
Results: 402 doctors, including 92.5% gynecologists participated. The most frequent motivators to place IUC were efficacy and long-term contraception; the most important barriers to intrauterine contraception use were nulliparity, inflammatory pelvic disease, cost, and pain during placement. About 80% will not place an intrauterine contraception to a nulliparous younger than 18 years old. Most of the doctors mentioned “a little higher risk” of inflammatory pelvic disease/infertility (mean 60.7%), they identified the same uterine perforation risk in nulliparous and woman with previous parity; 24% to 45% of the participants considered a risk of expulsion similar in nulliparous and women with previous parity. A mean of 64.5% of the participants considered that intrauterine contraception placement is a “little bit more painful” in nulliparous. 57.5% of the participants identified the intrauterine contraception use in nulliparous as a WHO Eligibility Criterion 2.
Conclusions: From doctors’ perception, the identified barriers for intrauterine contraception use were nulliparity, inflammatory pelvic disease/infertility and pain during insertion. Those barriers are historical concepts which have no scientific evidence today. It is essential to offer more information and educational training to healthcare providers.

REFERENCES

1. Lira-Plascencia J, Bahamondes L, Bahamondes MV, Fugarolas JM, Kosoy G, Magalhaes J, Paez-Fonseca B, Perfumo PR. Anticoncepción intrauterina en mujeres nulíparas como estrategia para disminuir los embarazos no planeados en América Latina. Ginecol Obstet Mex 2014;82:111-122.

2. Hall A, Kutler BA. Intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: a prospective survey. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2015;42:36-42

3. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-005-SSA2-1993, de los servicios de planificación familiar. SS, 2004. Consultado en marzo de 2016. Accesible en: http://www.salud.gob. mx/unidades/cdi/nom/005ssa23.html

4. OMS. Criterios médicos s de elegibilidad para el uso de anticonceptivos. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Consultado en marzo de 2016. Cuarta edición, 2009. Accesible en: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstre am/10665/44710/1/9789243563886_spa.pdf

5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013. Adapted from the World Health Organization Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, MMWR 2013;62(5):7-14.

6. National Collaborating Centre for Women´s and Children’s Health, Long-Acting reversible contraception. The effective and appropriate use of long-acting Reversible contraception. RCOG Press, London, 2005.

7. Committee on Adolescent Health Care Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. The American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologist. Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 983-8

8. Black KI, Lotke P, Lira J, Peers T, Zite NB. Global survey of healthcare practitioners’ beliefs and practices around intrauterine contraceptive method use in nulliparous women. Contraception 2013;88:650-656

9. Committee on Adolescence. Contraception for adolescents. Pediatrics 2014;134:e1244-56

10. Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, Guerra-Infante F, Guzman-Rodriguez R. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med 2001;345:561-567.

11. Lyus R, Lohr P, Prager S. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception 2010:81:367-371.

12. Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Minh TD. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception 2015; 91: 274-9.

13. Madden T, McNicholas C, Zhao Q, Secura G, Eisenberg DL, Peipert F. Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:718-726.

14. Simonatto P, Bahamondes MV, Fernandes A, Silveira C, Bahamondes L. Comparision of two cohorts of women who expulsed either a copper-intrauterine device or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 28. doi 10.1111/jog 12939.

15. Gemzell-Danielsson, Mansour D, Fiala C, Kaunitz AM, Bahamondes L. Management of pain associated with the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives. Human Reproduction Update. 2013;19:419-427.

16. Black K, Lotke P, Buhling KJ, Zite NB. A review of barriers and myths preventing the more widespread use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2012;17:340-350.

17. 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.