BACKGROUND: Rising 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.
METHODS: All 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.
RESULTS: Of 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).
CONCLUSIONS: IUDs 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.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic affected global access to health services, including contraception. We sought to explore effects of the pandemic on family planning (FP) service provision and use in South Africa and Zambia, including on implant and intrauterine device (IUD) users\' desire and ability to obtain removal. Methods: Between August 2020 and April 2021, we conducted surveys with 537 women participating in an ongoing longitudinal contraceptive continuation study. We also carried out in-depth interviews with 39 of the survey participants and 36 key informants involved in FP provision. We conducted descriptive analysis of survey responses and thematic analysis of interviews. Results: Contraceptive use changed minimally in this sample with the emergence of COVID-19. Fewer than half of women (n=220) reported attempting to access FP since the start of the pandemic, the vast majority of whom were using short-acting methods. Among those who sought services, 95% obtained their preferred method. The proportion of women not using a method before and after pandemic start did not change in Zambia (31%); in South Africa, the proportion increased from 8% to 10%. Less than 7% of implant or IUD users in either country reported wanting removal. Among those who sought removal (n=22), 91% (n=10) in Zambia and 55% (n=6) in South Africa successfully obtained removal. In qualitative interviews, women with challenges accessing FP services mentioned long queues, deprioritization of contraceptive services, lack of transportation, stock-outs, and fear of contracting COVID-19 at a facility. Key informants reported stock-outs, especially of injectables, and staff shortages as barriers. Conclusions: We did not find a substantial impact of COVID-19 on contraceptive access among this sample; however, providers and others involved in service provision identified risks to continuity of care. As the COVID-19 pandemic wanes, it continues to be important to monitor people\'s ability to access their preferred contraceptive methods.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare removal timing, techniques, and success of malpositioned intrauterine device (IUDs) to nonmalpositioned IUDs.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of IUD users with ultrasound performed between July 2014 and July 2017 within one medical system. We used Fisher exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests to compare clinical characteristics and IUD removal details between patients with malpositioned and nonmalpositioned IUDs.
RESULTS: Of 1759 ultrasounds reporting the presence of an IUD, 436 described IUD malposition. Of these, 150 described the IUD as embedded and 16 as partially perforated. IUDs were more likely to be removed and removed sooner for patients with malpositioned compared with nonmalpositioned IUDs (281/436 vs 545/1323, p < 0.001 and median 17 days vs 236 days from the index ultrasound, p < 0.001). Most IUDs, malpositioned and nonmalpositioned, were removed on the first attempt (82%, 85%), by a generalist obstetrician and gynecologist (75%, 70%), using a ring forceps (73%, 65%). Most embedded and partially perforated IUDs were removed (68%, 69%), using a ring forceps (59%, 67%), on the first attempt (84%, 91%).
CONCLUSIONS: Malpositioned IUDs were more likely to be removed and removed sooner than nonmalpositioned IUDs. Most IUDs, even IUDs labeled as partially perforated or embedded, were removed by a generalist obstetrician and gynecologist, using ring forceps, on first attempt.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound findings of IUD malposition are not associated with difficult IUD removal.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate continuation rates for postpartum intrauterine contraceptive device (PPIUD) at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1-year within existing programs in an under-resourced setting, and to identify determinants of discontinuation, removal and expulsion.
METHODS: We used a prospective cohort design and enrolled recent PPIUD adopter women across 100 public healthcare facilities in Odisha and Chhattisgarh, India. We collected their socio-demographic information and followed them up telephonically at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year for complications and continuation status. We assessed PPIUD continuation rates and factors associated with PPIUD discontinuation, removal, and expulsion using Cox proportional hazards modelling.
RESULTS: We enrolled 916 participants (579 (63.2%) from Odisha and 337 (36.8%) from Chhattisgarh). The continuation rate of PPIUD was 88.7% at 6 weeks, 74.8% at 6 months 60.1% at one year. Once discontinued, chances of not opting for any family planning method was high (up to 81.2%). Participants with education of 6th to 12th class and those experiencing complications (pain abdomen, bleeding and discharge per vaginum) were more likely to remove the IUD with adjusted hazard ratio of 1.82 (95% CI: 1.18-2.79) and 4.39 (95% CI: 3.25-5.93) respectively. For expulsion, we did not find any factor that was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: PPIUD continuation rates declined considerably after the initial 6 weeks. Counselling and follow-up services for managing complications must be strengthened, especially in the first 6 weeks of PPIUD insertion, to enhance and sustain programmatic impact.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings emphasize on the need to strengthen client counseling and follow-up for management of complications, especially in the first 6 weeks of insertion of PPIUDs. Ongoing programs need to address comprehensive capacity building efforts in this regard.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain associated with intrauterine device (IUD) placement has been identified as a significant barrier to the adoption of long-acting reversible contraception, contributing to lower utilization of the most effective reversible contraceptive methods.
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether instillation of intrauterine mepivacaine before IUD placement alleviates pain more effectively than a placebo.
METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving nulliparous women undergoing IUD placement. An intrauterine instillation of 10 mL of 20 mg/mL mepivacaine or 0.9 mg/mL sodium chloride was administrated through a hydrosonography catheter 2 minutes prior to IUD placement. Pain scores were assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) at prespecified time points. Primary outcome measured the difference in VAS pain scores between the intervention group and the placebo group during IUD placement. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores at instillation and 10 minutes after placement, tolerability of the placement pain, as well as acceptability of the analgesia method.
RESULTS: We enrolled 151 participants, with 76 assigned to the mepivacaine group and 75 to the placebo group. The mean VAS pain score during IUD placement showed a difference of 13.3 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.75-20.87; P<.001): the mepivacaine group had a mean of 53.9 mm (standard deviation [SD] 22.8), while the placebo group had a mean of 67.2 mm (SD 22.4). After adjusting for each individual provider\'s impact, the difference in mean pain scores remained statistically significant (12.2 mm 95% CI 4.85-19.62; P<.001). A greater proportion of women in the intervention group reported tolerable pain during placement with 70/75 participants (93.3%) compared to 53/66 participants (80.3%) in the placebo group (P=.021).
CONCLUSIONS: The intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine results in statistically significant reduction in pain score among nulliparous women during IUD placement. Although the precise clinical impact of this pain reduction method remains uncertain, the observed reduction in pain score result in a higher proportion of women reporting tolerable pain. This finding and the high acceptance as a pain reduction method thereby suggests clinical relevance. Intrauterine instillation of mepivacaine is a possible strategy to increase IUD utilization, particularly among nulliparous women who are at high risk of unintended pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the degree to which the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated restrictions and disruptions to health services, impacted the accessibility of hormonal long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) devices within Australia. Here, we explore longitudinal patterns of dispensing of the contraceptive implant and hormonal intrauterine devices (IUDs) within Australia, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: Population-based cohort study; analysis of 10% random sample of national Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme dispensing data, for females aged 15-49 years dispensed a hormonal LARC device between February 2017 and November 2021.
RESULTS: Interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated overall that there were no significant differences in monthly dispensing rates of hormonal LARC following the Australian onset of the pandemic in April 2020, with no subsequent change in the trend. However, when stratified by LARC type, a significant increase was evident during the pandemic period (April 2020-November 2021) in the rate of hormonal IUD dispensing per month (0.20 per 10 000 95% CI 0.01 to 0.38)), compared with a decrease for the implant (-0.08 per 10 000 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.01)). Increases in hormonal IUD dispensing during the pandemic were most pronounced for those aged 20-24 years, new users, those without a Commonwealth concession card, and in the State of Victoria.
CONCLUSIONS: Within Australia in the defined pandemic period, access to hormonal LARC devices was not negatively impacted. Rather a significant increase in dispensing of hormonal IUDs was evident.

OBJECTIVE: To assess women\'s contraceptive preferences in the immediate postpartum period and identify factors associated with use of their desired contraceptive method six months later.
METHODS: This prospective cohort study included women ≤48 h after delivery at a single public Brazilian hospital. The women\'s interview took place in two different momentsbefore hospital discharge (in-person interview) and six months after delivery (by telephone contact). For data collection and management, we used the REDCap electronic tool. Univariate and multivariate analyses (unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratio and 95 % confidence intervals) were used to identify factors associated with higher use of their desired contraceptive method six months after delivery.
RESULTS: A total of 294 women (166 adolescents) were included. Initial contraceptive preferences were especially intrauterine devices (IUDs) (39.1 %), implants (33.0 %) and injectable hormonal contraceptives (17.0 %). Six months later, 42.5 % (n = 125) were using their desired contraceptive method. Younger age, white race and contraceptive initiation prior to hospital discharge were associated with use of their desired contraceptive at six months.
CONCLUSIONS: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods were the most desired contraceptives among women after delivery. Providing and initiating free contraception prior to discharge from a birthing unit is important with regard to use of their desired method.

UNASSIGNED: To examine the prevalence of infections with high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical dysplasia, and the clearance rate of HPV infections, in users of different kinds of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and other contraceptive methods.
UNASSIGNED: A cross-sectional register-based study including 16,181 women aged 30-49 years participating in the screening programme for cervical cancer in a Swedish County in 2017-2018. Data on contraception from screening records was paired with the HPV test results, cytological and histological follow-up tests and subsequent HPV test.
UNASSIGNED: There was no difference in the risk of being HPV positive, or histological HSIL+, between users of copper-containing IUDs and women with no reported use of contraception. Use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system and hormonal contraception were associated with higher odds for HPV infection in age-adjusted models (aOR 1.21; 95% CI 1.04-1.41, and aOR 1.41; 95% CI 1.22-1.63, respectively) and for HSIL+ (aOR 1.45; 95% CI 1.02-2.06, and aOR 1.56; 95% CI 1.13-2.16, respectively). No significant differences were found in HPV clearance rates.
UNASSIGNED: Reported use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system and hormonal contraception, but not use of copper IUD, was associated with a higher prevalence of HPV infections and histological HSIL + compared to no reported use of contraception.
Women using copper IUD showed no difference in prevalence of HPV or cervical dysplasia compared to women not using contraception in cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and pregnancy outcomes of intrauterine balloon and intrauterine contraceptive devices in the prevention of adhesion reformation following hysteroscopic adhesiolysis in infertile women with moderate to severe intrauterine adhesion.
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial study.
METHODS: A tertiary university hospital.
METHODS: A total of 130 patients with moderate (American Fertility Society [AFS] score of 5-8) and severe (AFS score of 9-12) intrauterine adhesions were recruited.
METHODS: 86 patients were evenly allocated to group treated with an IUD for 1 month and group treated with an IUD for 2 months. 44 patients were allocated to group treated with a Foley catheter balloon.(IUD: Yuangong IUD).
RESULTS: The primary outcome measures were the AFS score, endometrial thickness, and pregnancy outcome. After hysteroscopy, the AFS score was significantly decreased(P<0.05), whereas endometrial thickness was significantly increased across the three groups(P<0.001). Notably, the decline in the AFS score in the balloon group was greater than that in the IUD-1-month group and IUD-2-month group(P<0.01), with no significant difference between the IUD groups(P = 0.298). Lastly, In addition, the extent of the increase in endometrial thickness(P = 0.502) and the pregnancy outcomes(P = 0.803) in the three groups were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Inserting a balloon or placing an IUD for one or two months can effectively lower the risk of adhesion recurrence and restore the shape of the uterine cavity. While the therapeutic effect of the balloon was superior to that of the IUD, no significant differences were observed in the one-month and two-month IUD groups.
BACKGROUND: This research was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/enIndex.aspx ); Clinical trial registry identification number: ChiCTR-IOR-17,011,943 ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=17979 ). Date of trial registration: July 11, 2017.

OBJECTIVE: The majority of intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted in China are tailless, requiring intrauterine manipulations for removal and causing pain. This study aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of lidocaine injection into a novel disposable injectable cervical dilator for IUD removal procedures.
METHODS: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted with women aged 18-65 years old requesting outpatient IUD removal. The study randomly assigned participants to either lidocaine (injecting 5 ml of 2% lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilator) or placebo (injecting 5 ml of normal saline into the device) group. All participants received a standardized paracervical block. The primary outcome was pain reported during IUD removal on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Intention-to-treat were conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of injecting lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilators.
RESULTS: We enrolled seventy-four eligible participants (37 in lidocaine group and 37 in placebo group). The results showed that the median intraoperative VAS score in the lidocaine group was lower than the placebo group (30.0 mm [IQR 20.0-46.0, n = 37] vs 46.0 mm [IQR 30.0-55.0, n = 37], p = 0.01. In subgroup analyses, among participants with IUD removal and without uterine manipulation and additional procedures, there was no statistically significant disparity observed in intraoperative VAS scores between the lidocaine and placebo group (15.0 mm [IQR 10.0-27.5, n = 8] vs 20.0 mm [IQR 20.0-40.0, n = 6]), p = 0.28). Among participants with an IUD removal necessitating intrauterine manipulations and without additional procedures, showing lower intraoperative VAS scores in lidocaine group (25.0 mm [IQR 15.0-40.5, n = 17]) compared to placebo group (46.0 mm [IQR 38.5-50.0, n = 23]), p < 0.01. Among participants with additional procedures in addition to IUD removal, there was no statistically significant disparity observed in intraoperative VAS scores between the lidocaine and placebo group (41.0 mm [IQR 32.5-57.5, n = 12] vs 45.0 mm [IQR 22.5-69.0, n = 8]), p = 0.97).
CONCLUSIONS: Injecting lidocaine into the novel disposable injectable cervical dilator for cervix dilation can significantly reduce pain during an IUD removal, particularly in patients necessitating intrauterine manipulations during IUD removal.
CONCLUSIONS: When we have to perform intrauterine manipulations to remove an IUD, surgical pain and narrow cervical canal undoubtedly affect the implementation of the procedure. Injecting lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilator can achieve local anesthesia while dilating the cervix, and might reduce the choice of general anesthesia for IUD removal.