Provider Perspectives on Intrauterine Device Practices in Adolescent Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Adolescent pregnancy is a worldwide public health concern, and the intrauterine device (IUD) is known to be a safe and effective method of long-acting reversible contraception in this group. Pediatric and gynaecologic societies have recommended the IUD as a first-line contraceptive for adolescents, given its safety and efficacy. This study aims to understand current IUD practices and elucidate barriers to insertion. METHODS: A survey was disseminated to North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology members via the listserv on 2 separate occasions. Consent was obtained prior to initiation of the survey. Results from the survey were anonymous and tabulated using descriptive statistics. Ethics approval was obtained (REB22-0269). RESULTS: There were 55 respondents, mostly in North America (93%). According to providers, adolescents most frequently seek out the IUD for contraception (45%) and abnormal uterine bleeding (24%). Providers felt the most common barriers were misconceptions (25%) and pain with insertion (24%). Although many physicians perform office insertions, several found that a Procedural Sedation Centre optimized wait times (38%) or felt that such a centre would be helpful (33%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that misconceptions surrounding the IUD remain. Education on contraception, specifically long-acting reversible contraceptives, is pivotal in decreasing adolescent pregnancy, reducing barriers, and improving adolescents' attitudes toward the IUD. Pain with insertion is a limiting factor, and procedural sedation may help in managing expectations and increasing acceptance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".