Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • Other Publications
    • abfm

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
American Board of Family Medicine
  • Other Publications
    • abfm
American Board of Family Medicine

American Board of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Abstracts In Press
    • Archives
    • Special Issue Archive
    • Subject Collections
  • INFO FOR
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Call For Papers
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
  • SUBMIT
    • Manuscript
    • Peer Review
  • ABOUT
    • The JABFM
    • The Editing Fellowship
    • Editorial Board
    • Indexing
    • Editors' Blog
  • CLASSIFIEDS
  • JABFM on Bluesky
  • JABFM On Facebook
  • JABFM On Twitter
  • JABFM On YouTube
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Evidence-Based Selection of Candidates for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (IUD)

Lisa S. Callegari, Blair G. Darney, Emily M. Godfrey, Olivia Sementi, Rebecca Dunsmoor-Su and Sarah W. Prager
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine January 2014, 27 (1) 26-33; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.01.130142
Lisa S. Callegari
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (LSC, OS, RD-S, SWP) and Family Medicine (EMG) and the Departments of Epidemiology (LSC) and Department of Health Services (SWP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle; the Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology (BGD), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
MD, MPh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Blair G. Darney
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (LSC, OS, RD-S, SWP) and Family Medicine (EMG) and the Departments of Epidemiology (LSC) and Department of Health Services (SWP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle; the Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology (BGD), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
PhD, MPh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Emily M. Godfrey
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (LSC, OS, RD-S, SWP) and Family Medicine (EMG) and the Departments of Epidemiology (LSC) and Department of Health Services (SWP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle; the Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology (BGD), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
MD, MPh
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Olivia Sementi
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (LSC, OS, RD-S, SWP) and Family Medicine (EMG) and the Departments of Epidemiology (LSC) and Department of Health Services (SWP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle; the Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology (BGD), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rebecca Dunsmoor-Su
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (LSC, OS, RD-S, SWP) and Family Medicine (EMG) and the Departments of Epidemiology (LSC) and Department of Health Services (SWP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle; the Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology (BGD), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
MD, MSCE
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sarah W. Prager
From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology (LSC, OS, RD-S, SWP) and Family Medicine (EMG) and the Departments of Epidemiology (LSC) and Department of Health Services (SWP), School of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle; the Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Obstetrics and Gynecology (BGD), Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
MD, MAS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1.

    Knowledge, attitude, and practice survey questions. Mirena is the trade name for releasing levonorgestrel intrauterine system releasing 20 μg/day. IUD, intrauterine device; PID, pelvic inflammatory disease; STI, sexually transmitted infection. FDA, US Food and Drug Administration.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Sample Characteristics of Physicians Who Insert the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) (n = 217)
    Demographic and practice characteristics
        Female gender157 (72.4)
        Specialty
            Family physician132 (60.8)
            Obstetrician-gynecologist85 (39.2)
        Practice setting
            Academic43 (19.8)
            Private practice122 (56.2)
            Public health47 (21.7)
        Trains residents or fellows141 (65.0)
        ≥10 years since residency134 (61.8)
        ≥10 LNG-IUSs inserted/year96 (44.2)
    Knowledge
        General, answered correctly
            LNG-IUS failure rate177 (81.6)
            LNG-IUS FDA-approved duration of use198 (91.2)
            Perfect score on 2 general knowledge items163 (75.1)
        Complications, answered correctly
            Infertility after removal206 (94.9)
            Increased risk for PID ≥20 days after insertion198 (91.2)
            Increased risk for PID <20 days after insertion125 (57.6)
            Increased risk of STI195 (89.9)
            Increased risk of ectopic pregnancy123 (56.7)
            Complications score, mean number answered correctly out of 5 (SD)*3.9 (0.93)
    Attitudes
        Factors that negatively influence decision to recommend LNG-IUS, answered yes
            Increased risk of PID/STIs/infertility48 (22.1)
            Cramping/pain side effect25 (11.5)
            Irregular bleeding side effect69 (31.8)
            Medical liability4 (1.8)
            Cost47 (21.7)
    Practice
        Routinely recommend LNG-IUS for the following patients, answered yes
            Nulliparous women121 (55.8)
            Women with a history of STIs/PID82 (37.8)
            Women with a history of ectopic pregnancy81 (37.3)
            Women <20 years old80 (36.9)
    • Data are n (%).

    • ↵* Complications score is calculated from number of correct answers on the 5 questions listed.

    • PID, pelvic inflammatory disease; SD, standard deviation; STI, sexually transmitted infection; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration.

    • View popup
    Table 2. Factors Associated With Physicians Routinely Recommending the 20-μg/day Levonorgestrel Intrauterine System (LNG-IUS) to 4 Patient Types: Multivariable Logistic Regression Models
    Patient Types*
    Nulliparous WomenAdolescents (age <20)Women With a History of STIs or PIDWomen With a History of Ectopic Pregnancy
    Physician demographics and practice characteristics
        Family physician†1.59 (0.68–3.57)1.45 (0.66–2.78)1.72 (0.77–3.85)0.53 (0.24–1.16)
        Academic practice setting‡1.32 (0.51–3.46)0.99 (0.43–2.30)0.97 (0.40–2.33)0.75 (0.31–1.85)
        Greater than 10 years since residency0.44 (0.21–0.93)§0.73 (0.37–1.45)0.76 (0.37–1.53)0.93 (0.45–1.91)
        Female sex2.14 (0.97–4.74)0.92 (0.43–1.96)0.90 (0.40–2.01)1.24 (0.56–2.79)
        Trains residents/fellows1.95 (0.88–4.30)3.56 (1.58–8.04)§3.71 (1.64–8.43)§3.05 (1.32–7.01)§
        More than 10 LNG-IUS inserted per year1.50 (0.67–1.53)1.50 (0.70–3.20)2.28 (1.04–5.01)§1.11 (0.51–2.42)
    Knowledge about LNG-IUS
        Perfect score on 2 item general knowledge2.39 (1.09–5.25)§1.62 (0.73–3.60)1.57 (0.69–3.56)1.15 (0.51–2.61)
        Complications score‖ (continuous out of 5)1.02 (0.68–1.53)1.11 (0.76–1.63)0.96 (0.64–1.43)1.84 (1.18–2.88)§
    Perceived factors that negatively influence recommending LNG-IUS, answered yes
        Cost0.76 (0.33–1.74)0.44 (0.19–1.02)1.39 (0.60–3.21)0.92 (0.39–2.16)
        Irregular bleeding0.40 (0.18–0.88)§1.42 (0.66–3.04)0.56 (0.25–1.24)1.30 (0.59–2.87)
        Cramping/pain1.04 (0.33–3.29)0.56 (0.18–1.69)0.33 (0.09–1.20)0.30 (0.08–1.11)
        Risk of infertility/STIs/PID0.19 (0.08–0.45)§0.85 (0.36–2.00)0.30 (0.11–0.77)§0.38 (0.15–0.98)§
    • Data are adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals).

    • ↵* Logistic regression models adjust for all variables in the table (n = 186 for all models).

    • ↵† Reference is obstetrician-gynecologist.

    • ↵‡ Reference is nonacademic practice settings.

    • ↵§ P < .05.

    • ↵‖ The complications score is calculated from number of correct answers on 5 questions regarding infertility, PID, STI, and ectopic pregnancy risks of LNG-IUS use.

    • PID, pelvic inflammatory disease; STI, sexually transmitted infection.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 27 (1)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 27, Issue 1
January-February 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Cover (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Board of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evidence-Based Selection of Candidates for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (IUD)
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Board of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Board of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Evidence-Based Selection of Candidates for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (IUD)
Lisa S. Callegari, Blair G. Darney, Emily M. Godfrey, Olivia Sementi, Rebecca Dunsmoor-Su, Sarah W. Prager
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2014, 27 (1) 26-33; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.01.130142

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Evidence-Based Selection of Candidates for the Levonorgestrel Intrauterine Device (IUD)
Lisa S. Callegari, Blair G. Darney, Emily M. Godfrey, Olivia Sementi, Rebecca Dunsmoor-Su, Sarah W. Prager
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Jan 2014, 27 (1) 26-33; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.01.130142
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Predicting poor compliance with follow-up and intrauterine contraception services after medical termination of pregnancy
  • Content Usage and the Most Frequently Read Articles of 2014
  • Family Physicians are Complex Care Physicians and Quality of Care Advancement Experts
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Associations Between Modifiable Preconception Care Indicators and Pregnancy Outcomes
  • Perceptions and Preferences for Defining Biosimilar Products in Prescription Drug Promotion
  • Evaluating Pragmatism of Lung Cancer Screening Randomized Trials with the PRECIS-2 Tool
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Contraception
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Graduate Education
  • Intrauterine Devices

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Authors & Reviewers

  • Info For Authors
  • Info For Reviewers
  • Submit A Manuscript/Review

Other Services

  • Get Email Alerts
  • Classifieds
  • Reprints and Permissions

Other Resources

  • Forms
  • Contact Us
  • ABFM News

© 2025 American Board of Family Medicine

Powered by HighWire