Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ARTICLES
    • Current Issue
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • 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
    • Ahead of Print
    • Archives
    • Abstracts In Press
    • 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

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Finer LB,
    2. Zolna MR
    . Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception 2011;84:478–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. 2.↵
    1. Finer LB,
    2. Henshaw SK
    . Disparities in rates of unintended pregnancy in the United States, 1994 and 2001. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2006;38:90–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  3. 3.↵
    1. Trussell J
    . Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception 2011;83:397–404.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  4. 4.↵
    1. Peipert JF,
    2. Zhao Q,
    3. Allsworth JE,
    4. et al
    . Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1105–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Winner B,
    2. Peipert JF,
    3. Zhao Q,
    4. et al
    . Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1998–2007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Allen RH,
    2. Goldberg AB,
    3. Grimes DA
    . Expanding access to intrauterine contraception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;201:456.e1–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Gynecologic Practice; Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group. ACOG Committee Opinion no. 450: Increasing use of contraceptive implants and intrauterine devices to reduce unintended pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1434–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Turok DK
    . What the world needs now is more access to the levonorgestrel IUD. Contraception 2013;87:391–2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Lowe RF,
    2. Prata N
    . Hemoglobin and serum ferritin levels in women using copper-releasing or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Contraception 2013;87:486–96.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Kadir RA,
    2. Chi C
    . Levonorgestrel intrauterine system: bleeding disorders and anticoagulant therapy. Contraception 2007;75(6 Suppl):S123–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Pakarinen P,
    2. Luukkainen T
    . Treatment of menorrhagia with an LNG-IUS. Contraception 2007;75(6 Suppl):S118–22.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Gemzell-Danielsson K,
    2. Schellschmidt I,
    3. Apter D
    . A randomized, phase II study describing the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive systems and Mirena. Fertil Steril 2012;97:616–22.e1–3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Hubacher D,
    2. Grimes DA
    . Noncontraceptive health benefits of intrauterine devices: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2002;57:120–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Mirena package insert. Wayne, NJ: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceutials Inc; February 2013. Available from: http://labeling.bayerhealthcare.com/html/products/pi/Mirena_PI.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2013.
  15. 15.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). US medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59(RR-4):1–86.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    Committee on Adolescent Health Care Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:983–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Stanwood NL,
    2. Garrett JM,
    3. Konrad TR
    . Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol 2002;99:275–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Madden T,
    2. Allsworth JE,
    3. Hladky KJ,
    4. Secura GM,
    5. Peipert JF
    . Intrauterine contraception in Saint Louis: a survey of obstetrician and gynecologists' knowledge and attitudes. Contraception 2010;81:112–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Harper CC,
    2. Blum M,
    3. de Bocanegra HT,
    4. et al
    . Challenges in translating evidence to practice: the provision of intrauterine contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:1359–69.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Rubin SE,
    2. Fletcher J,
    3. Stein T,
    4. Segall-Gutierrez P,
    5. Gold M
    . Determinants of intrauterine contraception provision among US family physicians: a national survey of knowledge, attitudes and practice. Contraception 2011;83:472–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Espey E,
    2. Ogburn T,
    3. Espey D,
    4. Etsitty V
    . IUD-related knowledge, attitudes and practices among Navajo Area Indian Health Service providers. Perspect Sex Reprod Health 2003;35:169–73.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Harper CC,
    2. Henderson JT,
    3. Raine TR,
    4. et al
    . Evidence-based IUD practice: family physicians and obstetrician-gynecologists. Fam Med 2012;44:637–45.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hosmer DW,
    2. Lemeshow S
    . Applied logistic regression. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2000.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Kooiker CH,
    2. Scutchfield FD
    . Barriers to prescribing the Copper T 380A intrauterine device by physicians. West J Med 1990;153:279–82.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  25. 25.↵
    1. Tyler CP,
    2. Whiteman MK,
    3. Zapata LB,
    4. Curtis KM,
    5. Hillis SD,
    6. Marchbanks PA
    . Health care provider attitudes and practices related to intrauterine devices for nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:762–71.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Grol R,
    2. Grimshaw J
    . From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet 2003;362:1225–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  27. 27.↵
    1. Cabana MD,
    2. Rand CS,
    3. Powe NR,
    4. et al
    . Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Kohn JE,
    2. Hacker JG,
    3. Rousselle MA,
    4. Gold M
    . Knowledge and likelihood to recommend intrauterine devices for adolescents among school-based health center providers. J Adolesc Health 2012;51:319–24.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Rubin SE,
    2. Davis K,
    3. McKee MD
    . New York City physicians' views of providing long-acting reversible contraception to adolescents. Ann Fam Med 2013;11:130–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Cull WL,
    2. O'Connor KG,
    3. Sharp S,
    4. Tang SF
    . Response rates and response bias for 50 surveys of pediatricians. Health Serv Res 2005;40:213–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.↵
    1. Dillman DA,
    2. Smyth JD,
    3. Christian LM
    . Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons; 2009.
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.
11 + 3 =
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

  • Successful Implementation of Integrated Behavioral Health
  • Identifying and Addressing Social Determinants of Health with an Electronic Health Record
  • Integrating Adverse Childhood Experiences and Social Risks Screening in Adult Primary Care
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