Barriers and facilitators for providing pain control during intrauterine device insertion: a multi-center physician survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate physicians’ barriers and facilitators, as well as knowledge, practices, attitudes, and beliefs, regarding analgesia for IUD insertionMethodology A multi-center online survey was conducted from January to July 2023 in Ontario, Canada. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, ANOVA, and thematic analysis.Results Among 85 providers who responded to the survey, there was a lack of consensus regarding provision of analgesia for IUD insertion, as only 52.9% routinely provided pain control. The remaining 40 providers (47.1%) stated that they do not routinely provide pain control for IUD insertion, although 87.5% of participants stated that they would provide pain control if the patient specifically requested analgesia. No differences were found between academic and community staff (p = 0.94) or less experienced providers in provision of pain control (p = 0.24). Reasons for provision of pain control included patient comfort, care, and procedure safety. Conversely, other physicians believed the pain was minimal or short-lived, or faced logistical barriers in providing analgesia.Conclusions Patients and providers should engage in shared decision-making regarding pain control for IUD insertion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".