Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28950913›Full record

SynthesisReproductive health2017

Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review.

Marina A S Daniele, John Cleland, Lenka Benova, Moazzam Ali

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Misoprostol for intrauterine device placement.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Provider bias and family planning in Upper Egypt: a simulated client approach.The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Providers' approaches to contraceptive provision in Cape Town.Frontiers in global women's health · 2022
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marina A S DanieleFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. marina.daniele@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5666-9489
John ClelandFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Lenka BenovaFaculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Moazzam AliDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
University of London · GBWorld Health Organization · CH

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntra-uterine contraception (IUC) involves the use of an intra-uterine device (IUD), a highly effective, long-acting, reversible contraceptive method. Historically, the popularity of IUC has waxed and waned across different world regions, due to policy choices and shifts in public opinion. However, despite its advantages and cost-effectiveness for programmes, IUC's contribution to contraceptive prevalence is currently negligible in many countries. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of the global literature on provider and lay perspectives on IUC. It aims to shed light on the reasons for low use of IUC and reflect on potential opportunities for the method's promotion.

methodsA systematic search of the literature was conducted in four peer-reviewed journals and four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and Global Health). Screening resulted in the inclusion of 68 relevant publications.

resultsMost included studies were conducted in areas where IUD use is moderate or low. Findings are similar across these areas. Many providers have low or uneven levels of knowledge on IUC and limited training. Many wrongly believe that IUC entails serious side effects such as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and are reluctant to provide it to entire eligible categories, such as HIV-positive women. There is particular resistance to providing IUC to teenagers and nulliparae. Provider opinions may be more favourable towards the hormonal IUD. Some health-care providers choose IUC for themselves. Many members of the public have low knowledge and unfounded misconceptions about IUC, such as the fear of infertility. Some are concerned about the insertion and removal processes, and about its effect on menses. However, users of IUC are generally satisfied and report a number of benefits. Peers and providers exert a strong influence on women's attitudes.

conclusionBoth providers and lay people have inaccurate knowledge and misconceptions about IUC, which contribute to explaining its low use. However, many reported concerns and fears could be alleviated through correct information. Concerted efforts to train providers, combined with demand creation initiatives, could therefore boost the method's popularity. Further research is needed on provider and lay perspectives on IUDs in low- and middle-income countries.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntrauterine DevicesAdultContraceptionFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansHealth-care providersIntra-uterine contraception (IUC)Intra-uterine device (IUD)Lay perspectivesUsers

Identifiers

PMID28950913
PMCPMC5615438
OpenAlexW2759638690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.