ArticleBMC primary care2024
Regional variation in health care substitution for intrauterine device insertion: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRising health care costs are a major concern in most Western countries. The substitution of healthcare stands as a strategic approach aimed at mitigating costs while offering medical services in proximity to patients' residences. An illustrative instance involves the migration of outpatient hospital care to primary care settings. Notably, the insertion of intrauterine devices (IUDs) can be safely executed within primary care contexts. In order to establish a pragmatic objective for the rate of IUD substitution, we conducted an evaluation of regional disparities in healthcare substitution pertaining to the insertion of intrauterine devices. Furthermore, we investigated disparities in the follow-up ultrasound and reinsertion of IUDs between primary and secondary healthcare environments.
methodsAll women who underwent IUD insertion in Dutch primary care (by general practitioners and midwives) and secondary care (by hospital physicians) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020 were included. The main outcome measures were the case-mix adjusted IUD insertion rates at the regional level by care setting and the proportions requiring follow-up ultrasound and IUD reinsertion within three months.
resultsOf the 840,766 IUD placements, 74% were inserted in primary care and 26% in secondary care. The proportion inserted in primary care increased from 70% in 2016 to 77% in 2020. The observed substitution rate ranged from 58 to 82% between regions. Compared with health care professionals in primary care, those in secondary care performed more ultrasounds to verify IUD placement (23% vs. 3%; p-value < 0.01) and more IUD reinsertions within three months (6% vs. 2%; p-value < 0.01).
conclusionsIUDs are increasingly being inserted in Dutch primary care, with peak regional IUD insertion care substitution rates at ≥ 80%. IUD insertion care substitution to primary care appears to be associated with significantly fewer women having follow-up ultrasound or IUD reinsertion within three months.
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.