The use of local anaesthesia for intrauterine device insertion by health professionals in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain associated with the insertion of an intrauterine device (IUD) is a known barrier to intrauterine contraception use in the UK. It is good practice for health professionals to discuss pain relief and use with women prior to the insertion of an IUD. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of and reasons for and against the use of local anaesthesia (LA) for IUD insertion. METHODS: A survey was undertaken using paper questionnaires to determine LA use for IUD insertion by UK health professionals. RESULTS: Overall, approximately one quarter (n=129) of all respondents use LA routinely, one quarter hardly ever or never use LA, while the remaining half use it sometimes. Use of LA was more prevalent among health professionals who worked in integrated sexual and reproductive health and contraception-only services, compared to general practice. UK health professionals who hardly ever or never used LA for the insertion of IUDs were more likely to be working in general practice. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this survey suggest that more UK health professionals need to routinely discuss pain relief and offer this to their patients prior to IUD insertion as part of the care pathway for patients who choose to use intrauterine contraception.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".