ArticleDigital health
Trends of intrauterine device insertion and 'Googling' about intrauterine devices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted access to primary care in Australia. This could have negatively impacted reproductive health services rates such as intrauterine device insertion rates, and interest in seeking information about intrauterine devices by searching on Google. We aimed to assess the trends of, and the association between, the actual Medicare service utilization rates for intrauterine device insertion and searching about intrauterine devices on Google, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted systematic analyses of secondary data from June 2017 to May 2022, using Medicare and Google Trends data sources. We visualized the rates of intrauterine device insertion, plus Google's search volumes about 'Intrauterine device' and 'Progestin IUDs' as topics. Then, we assessed the correlation between intrauterine device insertion rates and Google search, using Spearman correlation. Results: The average yearly rates of intrauterine device insertion increased noticeably from 25.1-26.3 in 2018-2019 to 29.3-31.2 per 100,000 population in 2020-2021 (12-18% increase). The highest monthly intrauterine device insertion rate nationally (37 per 100,000 population) was seen in March 2021. By June 2020, search term use for the two intrauterine device-related topics returned to much higher levels (50% increase for 'Progestin IUDs', and 54% for 'Intrauterine device', respectively). A moderately strong correlation was seen between actual intrauterine device insertion rates and search on Google about intrauterine devices (Spearman rho = 0.61, Conclusion: We demonstrated a moderately strong correlation between trends of intrauterine device insertion rates and search on Google about intrauterine devices, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. Googling about intrauterine devices could, therefore, be a useful indicator to gauge future interest in actual intrauterine device insertion for months thereafter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.