The Use of ACOG Guidelines: Perceived Contraindications to IUD and Implant Use Among Family Planning Providers
- PMID: 28707101
- DOI: 10.1007/s10995-017-2320-1
The Use of ACOG Guidelines: Perceived Contraindications to IUD and Implant Use Among Family Planning Providers
Abstract
Objectives The uptake and actual use of the current guidelines from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) is unknown. Methods Family planning providers across Colorado and Iowa were surveyed as part of statewide initiatives to reduce unintended pregnancy in 2010 and 2012, both before and after the release of the guidelines. These initiatives focused on the promotion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants. These surveys included questions on providers' views regarding the suitability and safety of the copper T IUD, hormonal IUD, and single rod implant for various subgroups of clients. The results are contrasted with guidelines provided in July of 2011 by ACOG. This strategy provides both baseline and follow-up models about the methods promoted in these guidelines. Results Findings show that there is some improvement in beliefs that IUDs are suitable and safe for women who are post-partum, post-abortion, have had an ectopic pregnancy, are nulliparous, teenagers, or have a history of STIs. However, these clinicians' views are not entirely in alignment with ACOG recommendations in their beliefs that these methods should not be used immediately post-partum or post-abortion. Notable percentages of these clinicians were hesitant to recommend these effective methods for other groups of patients, approved for use by ACOG. Conclusions While the cost of these methods is a barrier to adoption, these data suggest that there are continuing provider barriers to their use as well. The paper concludes with suggestions for further training for family planning providers.
Keywords: ACOG; Clinicians; IUDs; Intrauterine devices.
Similar articles
-
Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: long-acting reversible contraception practices and education.Contraception. 2014 Jun;89(6):578-83. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.004. Epub 2014 Feb 18. Contraception. 2014. PMID: 24656553
-
Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: practice and opinions about the use of IUDs in nulliparous women, adolescents and other patient populations.Contraception. 2014 Jun;89(6):572-7. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.008. Epub 2014 Feb 26. Contraception. 2014. PMID: 24679477
-
Impact of years of clinical experience on perceived contraindications and barriers to the use of LARC: a survey of family planning providers.Womens Health Issues. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):503-9. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2014.06.001. Womens Health Issues. 2014. PMID: 25213743
-
[Summary of the practice guideline 'The intrauterine device' from the Dutch College of General Practitioners].Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009;153:A578. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2009. PMID: 19785853 Review. Dutch.
-
Intrauterine devices. The optimal long-term contraceptive method?J Reprod Med. 1999 Mar;44(3):269-74. J Reprod Med. 1999. PMID: 10202746 Review.
Cited by
-
Knowledge, beliefs and practices of nurses with long-acting reversible contraception, Cape Town.Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2023 May 24;15(1):e1-e8. doi: 10.4102/phcfm.v15i1.3571. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2023. PMID: 37265159 Free PMC article.
-
Uterine Artery Rupture Caused by IUD Extraction: A Case Report.Int J Womens Health. 2022 Jun 27;14:831-836. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S345712. eCollection 2022. Int J Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 35783676 Free PMC article.
-
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Brazilian Physicians about Immediate Postpartum and Postabortion Intrauterine Device Insertion.Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023 Sep;45(9):e524-e534. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1772187. Epub 2023 Oct 16. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023. PMID: 37846185 Free PMC article.
References
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical