ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Why women refuse Postpartum IUCD?
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Women are highly motivated and receptive to accepting family planning methods during the antenatal period. Hence, we conducted this study to evaluate the refusal rate and reasons for the refusal of postpartum Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices (PPIUCD). Material and Methods: The present cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at a tertiary Care Centre, on 400 antenatal women from November 2023 for 2 months. Results: In present study, 331 (82.8%) subjects were knowing condom as contraceptive, followed by 310 (77.5%) subjects knowing about copper T. 282 (70.5%) subjects were knowing tubectomy, 264 (68.5%) were knowing oral contraceptives, 264 (66%) were knowing vasectomy, 205 (51.2%) were knowing natural methods, 179 (44.8%) were knowing injectable contraceptive, 83 (20.8%) were knowing Saheli, and 27 (6.8%) subjects were not knowing any contraceptive method. In total, 185 (46.5%) subjects knew that Copper T could be inserted immediately after delivery followed by 83 (20.9%) who knew that copper T could be inserted after menses. Sixty-nine (17.3%) knew that copper T could be inserted during a cesarean section. A total of 352 (88%) subjects refused postpartum copper T as a method of contraception. Only 48 (12%) subjects were willing to insert postpartum copper T. After counseling, the rate of acceptance of copper T insertion increased from 48 (12%) to 102 (25.5%). Conclusion: Knowledge of PPIUCD in the present study was good, but the refusal rate was high. The commonest reason was fear of side effects.
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.