Understanding the barriers and myths limiting the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: results of a survey of European/Canadian healthcare providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate healthcare providers' (HCPs') knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding intrauterine contraception (IUC). STUDY DESIGN: HCPs in eight European countries and Canada who saw at least 20 women per month for contraception completed an online questionnaire. Responses were evaluated by country. RESULTS: In total, 1103 HCPs completed the survey: 633 obstetrician-gynecologists, 335 general practitioners and 135 family planning clinicians (physician, midwife or nurse). When respondents in different countries were asked to report their three main barriers to considering IUC, predominant concerns were nulliparity (34-69%) and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID; 14-83%) for women in general, and insertion difficulty (25-83%), PID (17-83%), insertion pain (7-60%) and infertility (6-55%) for nulliparous women. In addition, 4-59% of HCPs reported that they never proactively include IUC in contraceptive counseling for a nulliparous woman, regardless of her age. Furthermore, only 30-61% of respondents correctly identified that, in the World Health Organization medical eligibility criteria for IUC, nulliparity is category 2 (benefits outweigh risks). CONCLUSIONS: HCPs in Europe and Canada have clear gaps in their knowledge regarding IUC and misplaced concerns persist, particularly regarding use of IUC in nulliparous women; the predominant misconceptions are about PID, insertion difficulty and insertion pain. Further education on the evidence is needed so that IUC is recognized as being suitable for young and nulliparous women and is included in contraceptive counseling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".