Factors Leading to Discntinuation of Intra Uterine Contraceptive Device
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i4.2028Keywords:
IUCD Discontinuation, Contraceptive Side Effects, Family Planning PracticesAbstract
Background: Because of their low user effort, affordability, and safety, intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCDs) are frequently used for long-acting reversible contraception. Despite these benefits, a sizable percentage of consumers stop using IUCDs too soon. This restricts the device's ability to fully prevent unwanted pregnancies. Misconceptions, insufficient counseling, cultural attitudes, and side effects are frequently factors that contribute to discontinuation. Improving the results of reproductive health requires an understanding of these factors. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence and underlying causes of IUCD discontinuation among female patients at a tertiary care facility. The goal of the study was to pinpoint prevalent patterns, user issues, and sociocultural elements that affect IUCD removal. Additionally, it sought to assess any gaps in follow-up and counseling procedures. Interventions to increase continuation rates would be supported by the findings. Promoting better informed contraceptive choices is the ultimate objective. Methodology: A tertiary care hospital in Quetta, Balochistan, served as the site of this six-month qualitative study. A semi-structured questionnaire was used for interviews with a purposive sample of 130 women who had stopped using IUCD. Descriptive statistics were used in the compilation and analysis of the data. For ease of understanding and interpretation, important discontinuation criteria were determined and displayed in frequency tables. Findings: The majority of participants were in the 26–35 age range. Myths or misconceptions concerning the device (19.2%), lower abdomen pain (23.1%), and excessive menstrual flow (29.2%) were the main causes of IUCD cessation. Significant contributions were also made by inadequate therapy (15.4%) and pressure from partners or family (7.7%). Most removals took place in the first six months following insertion. Conclusion: side effects, a lack of knowledge, and cultural misunderstandings are the main factors behind IUCD cessation. Proactive follow-up, increased counseling, and community awareness can all contribute to a decrease in premature removal and an increase in satisfaction. Improving the results of contraception requires addressing the social and psychological obstacles.
Downloads
References
1. Blumenthal, P., Voedisch, A., & Gemzell-Danielsson, K. (2010). Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: Increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception. Human Reproduction Update, 17(1), 121-137.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq026
2. Curtis, K. M., Jatlaoui, T. C., Tepper, N. K., Zapata, L. B., Horton, L. G., Jamieson, D. J., & Whiteman, M. K. (2016). U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR. Recommendations and Reports, 65(4), 1-66.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6504a1
3. Trussell, J., Henry, N., Hassan, F., Prezioso, A., Law, A., & Filonenko, A. (2013). Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: Potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception, 87(2), 154-161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2012.07.016
4. Ortiz, M. E., & Croxatto, H. B. (2007). Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: Biological bases of their mechanism of action. Contraception, 75(6), S16-S30.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.01.020
5. Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc. Mirena Prescribing Information. October 2009.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021225s027lbl.pdf
6. CooperSurgical. Paragard Prescribing Information September 2019.
7. Mohamed, S. A., Kamel, M. A., Shaaban, O. M., & Salem, H. T. (2003). Acceptability for the use of postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices: Assiut experience. Medical Principles and Practice, 12(3), 170-175.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000070754
8. Thomas, D., & Maluccio, J. (1996). Fertility, contraceptive choice, and public policy in Zimbabwe. The World Bank Economic Review, 10(1), 189-222.
https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/10.1.189
9. Grimes, D., Schulz, K., Van Vliet, H., & Stanwood, N. (2002). Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices: A Cochrane review. Human Reproduction, 17(3), 549-549.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.3.549
10. Blanchard H, Mac Kaig C. ACCESS-FP Program. 2006. Available at: Postpartum contraception:
http://www.k4health.org/sites/default/files/postpartu mabortion_English.pdf
11. Tatum, H. J., Beltran, R. S., Ramos, R., Van Kets, H., Sivin, I., & Schmidt, F. H. (1996). Immediate postplacental insertion of GYNE-T 380 and GYNE-T 380 postpartum intrauterine contraceptive devices: Randomized study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 175(5), 1231-1235.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70033-9
12. Sonfield, A., Siddiqui, F., Okunlola, M., Stella-Maris, O., Tokzaka, A., & Ojengbede, O. (2007). Popularity disparity: attitudes about the IUD in Europe and the United States. Guttmacher Policy Rev, 10(4), 19-24.
13. Black, K., Lotke, P., Buhling, K. J., & Zite, N. B. (2012). A review of barriers and myths preventing the more widespread use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 17(5), 340-348.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2012.700744
14. Stanwood, N. L., Garrett, J. M., & Konrad, T. R. (2002). Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 99(2), 275-280.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200202000-00019
15. Postlethwaite, D., Trussell, J., Zoolakis, A., Shabear, R., & Petitti, D. (2007). A comparison of contraceptive procurement pre- and post-benefit change. Contraception, 76(5), 360-365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.07.006
16. Goodman, S., Hendlish, S. K., Benedict, C., Reeves, M. F., Pera-Floyd, M., & Foster-Rosales, A. (2008). Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception, 78(2), 136-142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.008
17. Middleton, A. J., Naish, J., & Singer, N. (2011). General practitioners' views on the use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in young, nulligravid women, in London, UK. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 16(4), 311-318.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2011.580864
18. Allen, R. H., Goldberg, A. B., & Grimes, D. A. (2009). Expanding access to intrauterine contraception. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 201(5), 456.e1-456.e5.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.04.027
19. Lyus, R., Lohr, P., & Prager, S. (2010). Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception, 81(5), 367-371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2010.01.010
20. Harper, C. C., Blum, M., De Bocanegra, H. T., Darney, P. D., Speidel, J. J., Policar, M., & Drey, E. A. (2008). Challenges in translating evidence to practice. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 111(6), 1359-1369.
https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0b013e318173fd83
21. Hubacher, D., Lara-Ricalde, R., Taylor, D. J., Guerra-Infante, F., & Guzmán-Rodríguez, R. (2001). Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among Nulligravid women. New England Journal of Medicine, 345(8), 561-567.
https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa010438
22. Allen, R. H., Bartz, D., Grimes, D. A., Hubacher, D., & O'Brien, P. (2009). Interventions for pain with intrauterine device insertion. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd007373.pub2
23. Irving, S., Stern, J., & International committee for contraception research (ICCR). (1994). Health during prolonged use of levonorgestrel 20μg/D and the copper TCu 380Ag intrauterine contraceptive devices: A multicenter study. Fertility and Sterility, 61(1), 70-77.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56455-3
24. Grimes, D., Schulz, K., Van Vliet, H., & Stanwood, N. (2002). Immediate post-partum insertion of intrauterine devices: A Cochrane review. Human Reproduction, 17(3), 549-549.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.3.549
25. Tadesse M, Tadesse E. Women's knowledge and perceptions of intrauterine contraceptive device in Adigrat Town, Tigray, Ethiopia. Int J Reprod Med. 2015;2015:914740.
26. Ouyang M, He X, Wang Y, et al. Factors associated with intrauterine device discontinuation among women attending family planning clinics in rural China. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1424.
27. Middleton, A. J., Naish, J., & Singer, N. (2011). General practitioners' views on the use of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in young, nulligravid women, in London, UK. The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care, 16(4), 311-318.
https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2011.580864
28. Goodman, S., Hendlish, S. K., Benedict, C., Reeves, M. F., Pera-Floyd, M., & Foster-Rosales, A. (2008). Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception, 78(2), 136-142.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2008.03.008
29. Lyus R, Lohr PA, Prager S. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women: results from a U.S. practice-based research network. Contraception. 2010;81(5):367–71.
30. Sultana A, Khan M. Factors associated with discontinuation of IUCDs among married women in rural Pakistan: a qualitative study. Pakistan J Public Health. 2021;11(1):45–50.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
