Profile of women submitted to insertion of the intrauterine copper device in the Primary Health Care of municipalities of Paraíba
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5712/rbmfc16(43)2649Keywords:
Health Profile, Intrauterine Devices, Primary Health Care.Abstract
Introduction: Among the long-acting reversible contraceptives available on the market, the copper intrauterine device (IUD) is the method offered by the Brazilian government to be made available through the Unified Health System (SUS). Despite being a form of contraception with high efficacy and safety, including in adolescents and nulliparous, the IUD is still underutilized in Brazil. Objectives: To trace the profile of women submitted to the insertion of copper IUDs in Primary Health Care of municipalities in the state of Paraíba. Methods: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study with a sample of 246 women submitted to copper IUD insertion in the Primary Health Care of municipalities of Paraíba between 2016 and 2019. Information on age, occupation, education, marital status, and parity of these women were collected from medical records and records of the procedure. The nominal variables were presented by means of their absolute and relative frequencies and the continuous variables by means of their means, medians, and mode. Results: The age of women ranged from 15 to 50 years, with a mean age of 27.4 years, 158 (64.2%) were married or in consensual union and 150 (61%) women had at least complete. In the sample, 110 (44.7%) women were engaged in some paid activity and 97 (39.4%) declared housewife. There were 27 (11%) nulliparous and 215 (87.4%) women with at least one child, with an average of 1.6 children per woman. Among the adolescents in the study, 15 (75%) had at least one child. Conclusion: Most of the women who inserted IUDs in the Primary Health Care of Paraíba were between 20 and 29 years of age, had completed high school, had paid work, and had 1 to 2 children. The low percentages of women with low levels of education, adolescents and nulliparas found in the sample point to the need to outline specific strategies to encourage intrauterine devices in Primary Health Care.
Downloads
Metrics
References
(1) Ministério da Saúde (BR), Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde, Departamento de Atenção Básica. Saúde sexual e saúde reprodutiva. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2013.
(2) Piovesan F. Temas de direitos humanos. 9.ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2016.
(3) Bearak J, Popinchalk A, Alkema L, et al. Global, regional, and sub-regional trends in unintended pregnancy and its outcomes from 1990 to 2014: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lancet Glob Health. 2018; 6(4): e380–e389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S2214-109X(18)30029-9
(4) Ministério da Saúde (BR). Pesquisa Nacional de Demografia e Saúde da Criança e da Mulher – PNDS 2006: dimensões do processo reprodutivo e da saúde da criança. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2009.
(5) Viellas EF, Domingues RMSM, Dias MAB et al. Prenatal care; maternal and child health; maternal-child health services. Cad Saude Publica. 2014; 30 (Suppl 1): S1-S15.
(6) Cleland J, Conde-Agudelo A, Peterson H, Ross J, Tsui A. Contraception and health. Lancet. 2012; 380(9837): 149-156. PMID: 22784533 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60609-6
(7) Espey E, Ogburn T. Long-acting reversible contraceptives: intrauterine devices and the contraceptive implant. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(3): 705-719 PMID: 21343774 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820ce2f0
(8) Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. Engl J Med. 2012; 366(21): 1998-2007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110855
(9) Blumenthal PD, Voedisch A, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Strategies to prevent unintended pregnancy: increasing use of longacting reversible contraception. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17(1):121–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq026
(10) Trussell J, Hassan F, Lowin J, Law A, Filonenko A. Achieving cost-neutrality with long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Contraception. 2015; 91(1): 49-56. PMID: 25282161 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.08.011
(11) Rivera R, Yacobson I, Grimes D. The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 181:1263–9. PMID: 10561657 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70120-1
(12) Ortiz ME, Croxatto HB. Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of action.
(13) Contraception. 2007; 75: S16–30 PMID: 17531610 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2007.01.020
(14) Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011; 83(5): 397-404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. contraception.2011.01.021
(15) Girum T, Wasie A. Return of fertility after discontinuation of contraception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Contracept Reprod Med. 2018; 3 (1): 9. PMID: 30062044 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-018-0064-y
(16) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 121: Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(1): 184-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318227f05e
(17) Diedrich JT, Klein DA, Peipert JF. Long-acting reversible contraception in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obst Ginecol. 2017; 216(4): 364-e1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.024
(18) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010; 59(RR-4): 1-86. PMID: 20559203
(19) Shaamash AH, Sayed GH, Hussien MM, Shaaban MM. A comparative study of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system Mirena versus the Copper T380A intrauterine device during lactation: breast-feeding performance, infant growth and infant development. Contraception. 2005; 72(5): 346-351. PMID: 16246660 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2005.04.004
(20) Campbell SJ, Cropsey KL, Matthews CA. Intrauterine device use in a high-risk population: experience from an urban university clinic. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 197(2): 193.e1-193.e6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.04.028
(21) Steenland MW, Tepper NK, Curtis KM, Kapp N. Intrauterine contraceptive insertion postabortion: a systematic review. Contraception 2011; 84: 447–64. PMID: 22018119 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.007
(22) Washington CI, Jamshidi R, Thung SF, Nayeri UA, Caughey AB, Werner EF. Timing of postpartum intrauterine device placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 131–7. PMID: 25439838 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.032
(23) Grimes DA, Lopez LM, Manion C, Schulz KF. Cochrane systematic reviews of IUD trials: lessons learned. Contraception. 2007; 75(6 Suppl): S55-9. PMID: 17531618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2006.12.004
(24) OʼNeil-Callahan M, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura G.Twenty-four-month continuation of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 1083-91. PMID: 24104781
(25) Diedrich JT, Madden T, Zhao Q, Peipert JF. Long-term utilization and continuation of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 213(6): 822.e1-822.e6. PMID: 26409157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.077
(26) Gonzaga, VAS, Borges ALV, Santos OAD, Rosa PLFS, Gonçalves RFS. Barreiras organizacionais para disponibilização e inserção do dispositivo intrauterino nos serviços de atenção básica à saúde. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2017; 51, e03270-e03270. DOI: https://doi. org/10.1590/s1980-220x2016046803270
(27) Svanemyr J, Chandra-Mouli V, Christiansen CS, Mbizvo M. Preventing child marriages: first international day of the girl child “my life, my right, end child marriage”. Reprod Health. 2012; 9:31. PMID: 23163964 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-4755-9-31
(28) Borges ALV, Araújo KS, Santos AO, Gonçalves RFS, Fujimori E, Divino EA. Knowledge about the intrauterine device and interest in using it among women users of primary care services. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem. 2020; 28: e3232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1518- 8345.3140.3232
(29) Lowes L, Eddy D, Channon S, McNamara R, Robling M, Gregory JW. The experience of living with type 1 diabetes and attending clinic from the perception of children, adolescents and carers: analysis of qualitative data from the DEPICTED study. J Pediatr Nurs. 2015; 30(1): 54-62. PMID: 25308399 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2014.09.006
(30) Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Ethier K, Moskosky S. Meeting the contraceptive needs of teen and Young adults: youth-friendly and long-acting reversible contraceptive services in U.S. family planning facilities. J Adolesc Health. 2013; 52: 284–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2012.10.276
(31) Hubacher D. Long-acting reversible contraception acceptability and satisfaction is high among adolescents. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. 2017; 22(6): 228-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110768
(32) Borges ALV, Fujimori E, Kuschnir MCC, Chofakian CBDN, Moraes AJPD, Azevedo GD, et al. ERICA: sexual initiation and contraception in Brazilian adolescents. Rev saúde públ. 2016; 50: 15s. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s01518-8787.2016050006686
(33) Vasilenko AS, Kugler KC, Rice CE. Timing of first sexual intercourse and young adult health outcomes. J Adol Health. 2016; 59(3): 291-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.04.019
(34) Yazlle, MEHD. Gravidez na adolescência. Rev. Bras. Ginecol Obstet. 2006; 28(8): 443-445.
(35) Teal SB, Romer, SE. Awareness of long-acting reversible contraception among teens and young adults. J Adolesc Health. 2013; 52(4): S35-S39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.013
(36) Coombe J, Harris ML, Loxton D. Who uses long-acting reversible contraception? Profile of LARC users in the CUPID cohort. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2017; 11: 19-24. PMID: 28159123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.srhc.2016.09.003
(37) Herbert D, Harris M, Loxton D, Lucke J. Contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy among 18-23-year-old women in Australia: the first findings of the CUPID study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2013; 18:S78–9.
(38) de Souza Barros J V, Wong LLR. Prevalência, conhecimento e tipos de métodos contraceptivos utilizados pelas mulheres, segundo o tipo de união: um estudo para Brasil e México. Anais. 2016; 1-20.
(39) Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Hubacher D, Kost K, Finer LB. Characteristics of women in the United States who use long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117(6): 1349–57. PMID: 21606745 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821c47c9
(40) Gray E, Arunachalam D. Patterns of contraceptive use. In: Heard G, Arunachalam D, editors. Family formation in 21st century Australia. Dordrecht: Springer. 2015; p.123–40.
(41) Haimovich S. Profile of long-acting reversible contraception users in Europe. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2009; 14(3): 187- 195. PMID: 19565416 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13625180902741436
(42) Regianini HA. Perfil das pacientes submetidas à inserção de dispositivo intrauterino no Centro de Saúde dos Ingleses. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; 2009.
(43) Vieira EM, Badiani R, Dal Fabbro AL, Rodrigues Junior AL. Características do uso de métodos anticoncepcionais no Estado de São Paulo. Ver Saud Publ. 2002; 36: 263-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-89102002000300002
(44) Abasiattai AM, Bassey EA, Udoma EJ. Profile of intrauterine contraceptive device acceptors at the university of Uyo teaching hospital, Uyo, Nigeria. Ann Afr Med. 2008; 7:1-5. PMID: 18702241 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1596-3519.55692
(45) Xu X, Macaluso M, Frost J, Anderson JE, Curtis K, Grosse SD. Characteristics of users of intrauterine devices and other reversible contraceptive methods in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96(5): 1138-1144. PMID: 21917255 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2011.08.019
(46) Callegari LS, Parisi, SM, Schwarz EB. Perceptions of intrauterine contraception among women seeking primary care. Contraception. 2013; 88(2), 269-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2013.02.004
(47) Hladky KJ, Allsworth JE, Madden T, Secura GM, Peipert JF. Women’s knowledge about intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:48–54 PMID: 21173643 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318202b4c9
(48) Chan LM, Westhoff CL. Tubal sterilization trends in the United States. Fertil Steril. 2010; 94: 1– 6. PMID: 20497790 DOI: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.029
(49) Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Tylor LR, Peterson HB. Poststerilization regret: findings from the United States Collaborative Review of Sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 93: 889–95. PMID: 10362150 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-199906000-00001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ianna Gil de Farias Morais, Danyella da Silva Barreto, Alexandre José de Melo Neto, Ricardo de Sousa Soares, Rafael Dias Gonçalves, Maria Eduarda de Melo Pereira do Rêgo, Priscylla Silveira Ramos Costa
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting a manuscript to the RBMFC, authors retain ownership of the copyright in the article, and authorize RBMFC to publish that manuscript under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license and identify itself as the vehicle of its original publication.
