The evidence is in. Why are IUDs still out?: family physicians' perceptions of risk and indications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Intrauterine devices (IUDs) for contraception are used infrequently in Canada despite their well-studied safety and efficacy. The purpose of this study was to investigate FPs' perceptions of the risks of and indications for using IUDs, as these perceptions might be a key factor in why IUDs are underused. DESIGN: Mailed survey. SETTING: Kingston, a midsized city in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All FPs practising in Kingston. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of FPs who ranked the importance of risks of and contraindications to using IUDs in keeping with rankings in established clinical guidelines.Secondary outcomes were FP IUD prescription and insertion patterns, their perceptions of patients' access to physicians who insert IUDs, and their interest in a course on IUD insertion. RESULTS: Response rate was 81%. Contrary to the evidence, more than 60% of FPs thought pelvic inflammatory disease and ectopic pregnancy were major risks, and nearly half thought failure of IUDs was a major risk. Fewer than one-third would recommend IUDs as an option for nulliparous women, for postcoital contraception, for women with moderate-sized fibroids, or for women with pelvic inflammatory disease during the last year,though none of these are contraindications according to established clinical guidelines. About 82% of FPs prescribed IUDs, and 41% inserted them. Newer graduates were more likely than older graduates to prescribe only levonorgestrel IUDs (36% vs 8%). About 93% of survey respondents reported that patients' access to physicians who insert IUDs was not a factor in recommending IUDs to them. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of surveyed FPs believed that the side effects of IUDs were more severe than is supported by clinical guidelines and were misinformed about the range of women who could benefit from IUDs. These misconceptions likely contribute to the low rate of IUD use in Canada.
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 | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".