Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40281364›Full record

ArticleMaternal and child health journal2025

Intrauterine Devices: Take Up and Discontinuation in a Time of Change.

Valerie Leiter, Gracyn Delaune

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Valerie LeiterDepartment of Public Health, Simmons University, 300 Fenway, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. valerie.leiter@simmons.edu.
Gracyn DelauneDepartment of Sociology, Simmons University, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesIntrauterine devices (IUDs) are a highly effective form of contraception. This paper examines who is more likely to use an IUD, who is more likely to discontinue IUD use due to dissatisfaction, and reasons for dissatisfaction, just before and after the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision that eliminated the federal right to abortion.

methodsThis study analyzes data from the 2017-2019 and 2022-2023 National Survey of Family Growth. Changes in IUD prevalence and removal for dissatisfaction were estimated. Logistic regression was used to examine IUD use and discontinuation due to dissatisfaction. Respondents' reasons for discontinuation were explored.

resultsIUD use increased very slightly but significantly, from 11.6 to 13.0%. Education, age, race, insurance status, living in a rural area, having given birth, and wanting any/more children were significant predictors of IUD use. The percentage of women who discontinued IUD use due to dissatisfaction decreased significantly, from 33.2 to 22.2%. Education and race/ethnicity were significant predictors of IUD removal. Most women who discontinued use due to dissatisfaction reported side effects. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: IUDs are an increasingly important contraceptive method in the post-Dobbs era. However, we need to keep an eye on possible patient problems with the devices, particularly side effects such as pain, bleeding, and device migration, and educate patients on these possible side effects in advance of inserting an IUD. We also need to maintain users' ability to remove their IUDs if its benefits no longer outweigh its side effects, to preserve patient autonomy and well-being.

Indexed as

ContraceptionContraception BehaviorIntrauterine DevicesPatient SatisfactionAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAccessContraceptionDissatisfactionIntrauterine devices (IUDs)Medical devices

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.