Postplacental Placement of Intrauterine Devices: Acceptability, Reasons for Refusal and Proposals to Increase its Use.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability of postplacental placement of intrauterine devices (PPIUD), reasons for refusal and suggested policies to increase its use. METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted at the Women Hospital of the Universidade de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brazil. Postplacental placement of intrauterine devices was offered to women admitted in labor who did not present infections, uterine malformation, twin pregnancy, preterm birth, and were at least 18 years old. In case of refusal, the parturient was asked to give their reasons and the answers were classified as misinformation about contraception or other reasons. The following were considered misinformation: fear of pain, bleeding, contraception failure and future infertility. Bivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: Amongst 241 invited women, the refusal rate was of 41.9%. Misinformation corresponded to 50.5% of all refusals, and the reasons were: fear of pain (39.9%); fear of contraception failure (4.9%); fear of bleeding (3.9%); fear of future infertility (1.9%); other reasons for refusal were 49.5%. Parturients aged between 18 and 27 years old refused the PPIUD more frequently due to misinformation (67.4%), and older parturients (between 28 and 43 years old) refused frequently due to other reasons (63.6%) (p = 0.002). The mean age of those who declined the PPIUD due to misinformation was 27.3 ± 6.4 years old, while those who declined for other reasons had a mean age of 29.9 ± 5.9 years old (p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: The refusal of the PPIUD was high, especially amongst young women and due to misinformation. It is necessary to develop educative measures during antenatal care to counsel women about contraception, reproductive health and consequences of unintended pregnancy.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a taxa de aceitação do dispositivo intrauterino pós-placentário (DIUPP); os motivos de recusa e propor medidas que aumentem sua aceitação. MéTODOS: Estudo de corte transversal realizado no Hospital da Mulher da Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil. O DIUPP foi oferecido a mulheres admitidas em trabalho de parto que não apresentavam: infecções, malformação uterina, gravidez gemelar, parto prematuro e com idade mínima de 18 anos. Em caso de recusa, perguntou-se o motivo, e as respostas foram agrupadas em informações equivocadas sobre contracepção ou outros motivos. Considerou-se informação equivocada: medo de dor, sangramentos, falha da contracepção e prejuízo da fertilidade. Análises bivariadas foram realizadas. RESULTADOS: Entre 241 mulheres, a taxa de recusa foi de 41,9%. A desinformação correspondeu a 50,5% de todos os motivos de recusa, que foram: medo da dor (39,9%); medo da falha da contracepção (4,9%); medo de sangramento (3,9%), medo de o dispositivo intrauterino (DIU) prejudicar a fertilidade (1,9%). Outros motivos de recusa atingem 49,5%. Parturientes com idade entre 18 e 27 anos recusaram o PPIUD com mais frequência devido a desinformação (67,4%), e as mais velhas (com idade entre 28 e 43 anos) recusaram com frequência devido a outros motivos (63,6%) (p = 0,002). Houve diferença entre a idade média de quem recusou o PPIUD por desinformação (27,3 ± 6,4 anos) em comparação com outras razões (29,9 ± 5,9 anos), (p = 0,017). Além disso, ambos os grupos apresentaram altas taxas de recusa por desinformação, de 67,4 e 36,4%, respectivamente. CONCLUSãO: A recusa do DIUPP foi alta, principalmente entre as mulheres jovens e por desinformação. Diante disso, é necessário o desenvolvimento de medidas educativas durante o pré-natal e aconselhar as mulheres sobre contracepção, saúde reprodutiva e gravidez indesejada.

Postplacental placement of intrauterine devices: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the expulsion rate of the TCu380A intrauterine device (IUD) or levonorgestrel (LNG) 52 mg intrauterine system (IUS) up to 90 days after postplacental placement (10 min after delivery of the placenta). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized trial (1:1) of women aged 18-43 years and ≥37 weeks pregnant enrolled during early or prodromal labor at the University of Campinas, Brazil. Follow-up was scheduled at 42 and 90 days after device placement. We confirmed the IUD or IUS location using ultrasonography. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess variables associated with expulsion. RESULTS: We enrolled 140 women, and assigned 70 to the TCu380A IUD and 70 to the IUS groups. By the 90-day follow-up visit, 22/60 women (36.7%) in the TCu380A IUD group had expelled the device, as had 12/60 women in the IUS group (20%). Thirty-three of the 34 expulsions had occurred by the 42-day visit. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the expulsion odds ratio ([OR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]) was higher after vaginal delivery than after Cesarean delivery (OR 5.60; 95% CI 2.08-15.10; P < 0.00) and higher among women with one (OR 4.38; 95% CI 1.33-14.43; P 0.00) or three or more deliveries (including the present one) (OR 6.08; 95% CI 1.78-20.77; P 0.00) than those with two deliveries. CONCLUSIONS: Postplacental TCu380A IUD placement had a higher expulsion rate than the IUS, and the expulsion rate was higher among women who had a vaginal delivery than those who had a Cesarean delivery. Most of the expulsions occurred within 42 days. IMPLICATIONS: Policy makers should increase the availability of both the TCu380A and the LNG intrauterine devices for the immediate postpartum period, even though the expulsion rate is higher than that after interval placement.