Indications of Intrauterine Contraceptive Devices Insertion in Ayub Teaching Hospital Abbottabad
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i7.3105Keywords:
Contraception, Parity, Family planning services, Intrauterine devices, Pregnancy preventionAbstract
Background: The intrauterine contraceptive device is one of the frequently used methods of contraception. This mode of contraception is long lasting and does not require adherence on a day-to-day basis. There are many socio-cultural and obstetric determinants that play an important role in the usage of this mode of contraception. Objective: To determine the indications of intrauterine contraceptive device insertion in women presenting to a tertiary care hospital. Study Design: Cross sectional study. Duration and Place of Study: This study was conducted from 15 January 2025 to 15 May 2025 in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ayub Teaching Hospital. Methodology: Total 114 women aged 18–49 years undergoing intrauterine contraceptive device insertion were included. Indications including low family income, multiparity, less age of youngest child, history of abortion and long term pregnancy prevention were assessed. Data was analysed using statistical package for social sciences. Mean and standard deviation was calculated for quantitative variables while frequency and percentage for categorical variables. Results: Mean age was 34.61 ± 5.87 years. Majority were multipara 110 (96.5%). Most common indication was prevention of pregnancy for long time 87 (76.3%), followed by low family income 50 (43.9%), history of abortion 26 (22.8%) and less age of youngest child 22 (19.3%). Significant association was found between age and less age of youngest child (p<0.001). Conclusion: Our study has concluded that multiparity and desire for long term contraception are main indications.
Downloads
References
1. Yılmaz ZDK, Çapık A. The experiences of women who have used intrauterine devices for a long time. Nursing & Health Sciences. 2025;27(2):e70116.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.13116
2. Chawla L, Gupta S, Sharma S, et al. Comparison of the intrauterine enabler device technique and conventional method for inserting copper 380 mm² intrauterine device: a pilot study. Cureus. 2024;16(10):e70687.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.70687
3. Mason E, Black K. Update on long- and short-acting contraceptive methods. Australian Prescriber. 2025;48(3):72-81. https://doi.org/10.18773/austprescr.2025.023
4. Barton BE, Barton JS, Barton GT. Reversible female contraceptives: historical, current, and future perspectives. Biological Research. 2023;56(1):64.
https://doi.org/10.1093/biolre/ioad154
5. Gudi SN, Sagar S, Gupta S, et al. A prospective multi-centric study of acceptance, insertion and follow-up of postpartum insertions of IUCD. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2023;73(1):45-52.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-022-01738-4
6. Upadhye JJ, Upadhye JV. Why women refuse postpartum IUCD? The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2025;75(1):12-18.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_131_24
7. Curtis KM, Nguyen AT, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2024. MMWR Recommendations and Reports. 2024;73(3):1-77.
https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7303a1
8. Lou Y, Zhang J, Wang X, et al. Immediate and delayed placement of the intrauterine device after abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):11402.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62327-1
9. Odekunle OM, Olaleye AA, Ijarotimi OA, et al. Knowledge, attitude and determinants of post-abortion contraceptive use among women of reproductive age seeking care in healthcare facilities in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. PLOS ONE. 2025;20(5):e0303245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0303245
10. Kayiga H, Looft-Trägårdh E, Atuhairwe S, et al. Uptake of intrauterine contraception after medical management of first trimester incomplete abortion: a cross-sectional study in central Uganda. Contraception and Reproductive Medicine. 2025;10(1):15.
https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.11.24313496
11. Mukherjee S, Swain D. Barriers and acceptance of intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUCD) among married women of reproductive age in Odisha, India. Cureus. 2023;15(6):e40919-22.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40919
12. Manaswini K, Greeshma S. Immediate postpartum IUCD insertion study. Int J Pharm Clin Res. 2024;16(10):06-11.
13. Nazeer S, Afridi N, Fareed A, Khan FS, Khan S, Khan SG. Frequency of trans-caesarean IUCD insertion. Professional Med J. 2021;28(3):366-371.
https://doi.org/10.29309/TPMJ/2021.28.03.4971
14. Khan M, Rauf B. Frequency of acceptability of PPIUCD after antenatal counselling. IJBR. 2025;3(2):857-862.
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i2.2737
15. Karaçor T, Başaranoğlu S, Peker N, Güler O, Aydin E, Deregözü A, et al. Intrauterine pregnancies with IUD in situ. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2018;11(5):5051-5056.
16. Schwartz BI, Alexander M, Breech LL. Levonorgestrel intrauterine device use in adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2021;34(1):?-?.
17. Ansari A, Imran A, Baqai S, Khalil H, Siddiqa A. Postpartum IUCD insertion in cardiac patients. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2017;67(Suppl-2):S119-S124.
18. Hassen TA, Harris ML, Shifti DM, Beyene T, Khan MN, Feyissa TR, et al. Effects of short inter-pregnancy/birth interval on adverse perinatal outcomes in Asia-Pacific region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(7):e0307942. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307942
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.