4.3 Article

Six-month and 1-year continuation rates following postpartum insertion of implants and intrauterine devices

Journal

CONTRACEPTION
Volume 92, Issue 6, Pages 532-535

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.09.007

Keywords

Long acting reversible contraception; postpartum contraception; contraception continuation; contraception compliance

Funding

  1. Department of Family Planning, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Studies show immediate postpartum (PP) insertion increases use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices (IUDs). Our objective was to compare the satisfaction and continuation rates of the two types of devices at 6 months and 1 year following PP insertion. Study Design: We enrolled 133 women in a prospective cohort study following immediate PP insertion of an implant or IUD at two academic hospitals during 8 months of 2011. Subjects completed an enrollment survey during hospital admission and a follow-up phone survey 6 months and 1 year PP. Results: At 6 months PP, 72% of subjects provided follow-up information. Implant users were more likely to be using the originally-placed device (40/41, 98% vs. 45/55, 82%, p=0.02); nine women reported IUD expulsions. When accounting for replacement of expelled IUDs, IUD continuation at 6 months was 89% yielding similar continuation rates between groups (p=0.12). At 1 year PP, 51% provided follow-up. Of those, 82% still had a LARC method in place with similar continuation by device type (84% for implants, 81% for IUDs, p=0.96). Overall, satisfaction was similarly high in both groups. Conclusion: Due to IUD expulsion, implants had a higher continuation rate than IUDs six months following immediate PP insertion. After replacement of expelled IUDs, continuation and satisfaction were similar for both devices at 6 months and 1 year. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available