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

Intrauterine Devices at Six Months: Does Patient Age Matter? Results from an Urban Family Medicine Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Network

Anita Ravi, Linda Prine, Eve Waltermaurer, Natasha Miller and Susan E. Rubin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine November 2014, 27 (6) 822-830; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140091
Anita Ravi
From the Beth Israel Residency in Urban Family Practice, New York, NY (AR); the Institute for Family Health, New York, NY (LP, NM); Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz (EW); and the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (SER).
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Linda Prine
From the Beth Israel Residency in Urban Family Practice, New York, NY (AR); the Institute for Family Health, New York, NY (LP, NM); Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz (EW); and the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (SER).
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eve Waltermaurer
From the Beth Israel Residency in Urban Family Practice, New York, NY (AR); the Institute for Family Health, New York, NY (LP, NM); Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz (EW); and the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (SER).
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Natasha Miller
From the Beth Israel Residency in Urban Family Practice, New York, NY (AR); the Institute for Family Health, New York, NY (LP, NM); Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz (EW); and the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (SER).
BA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Susan E. Rubin
From the Beth Israel Residency in Urban Family Practice, New York, NY (AR); the Institute for Family Health, New York, NY (LP, NM); Department of Sociology, State University of New York, New Paltz (EW); and the Department of Family and Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY (SER).
MD, MPH
  • 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.

    Comparison of 6 month device continuation rates between adolescents and adults who had an IUD inserted at the IFH FQHC network in 2011.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Adolescents and Adults Who Had an Intrauterine Device (IUD) Inserted at the Institute for Family Health Federally Qualified Health Centers Network in 2011
    CharacteristicsAdolescents (n = 182)Adults (n = 502)P Value
    Mean age ± SD (years)18.0 ± 1.626.9 ± 3.8
        <1892 (50.5)—
        18–2090 (49.5)—
        21–25—191 (38.0)
        26–30—199 (39.6)
        31–35—112 (22.3)
    Race*<.001
        African American27 (14.8)110 (21.9)
        White11 (6.0)150 (29.9)
        Other/mixed74 (40.7)144 (28.7)
    Ethnicity*<.001
        Non-Hispanic44 (24.2)257 (51.2)
        Hispanic82 (45.1)184 (36.7)
    Gravidity*<.001
        096 (52.7)140 (27.9)
        145 (24.7)107 (21.3)
        >118 (9.9)209 (41.6)
    Parity*<.001
        0142 (78.0)226 (45.0)
        116 (8.8)122 (24.3)
        >14 (2.2)110 (21.9)
    IUD payment form*<.001
        Grant funded81 (44.5)122 (24.3)
        Insurance101 (55.5)377 (75.1)
    Location of insertion<.001
        Residency site141 (77.5)331 (65.9)
        Nonresidency site41 (22.5)171 (34.1)
    Type of device*.71
        Hormonal131 (72.0)356 (70.9)
        Nonhormonal50 (27.5)146 (29.1)
    Reason for insertion†
        Routine contraception131 (72.0)336 (66.9).87
        Postpartum contraception5 (2.7)62 (12.4)<.001
        Postabortion contraception38 (20.9)65 (12.9).01
        Emergency contraception0 (0)6 (1.2).14
        Menorrhagia0 (0)7 (1.4).11
    Patients who initiated IUD-related contact‡108 (59.3)216 (43.0)<.001
    • Data are number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

    • ↵* The total may not sum to 100% because of missing data.

    • ↵† The total may sum to >100% because patients could select multiple reasons.

    • ↵‡ More than 95% of the total number of patients who had any contact with the Institute for Family Health during the 6 months after insertion also initiated intrauterine device (IUD)-related contact.

    • SD, standard deviation.

    • View popup
    Table 2. Follow-up Frequency and Reasons for Patient-Initiated, Intrauterine Device (IUD)–Related Contact With Providers Among Adolescents and Adults Who Had an IUD Inserted at the Institute for Family Health Federally Qualified Health Centers Network in 2011
    Adolescents (n = 108)Adults (n = 216)
    Median number of contacts (range)2 (1–11)1 (1–6)
    Patients with ≥3 contacts40 (37.0)33 (15.0)
    Most common reasons for contact
        Bleeding change54 (50.0)93 (43.1)
        Pelvic/abdominal pain53 (49.1)81 (37.5)
        String check33 (30.6)69 (31.9)
        Remove request25 (23.1)42 (19.4)
    • Data are number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

    • View popup
    Table 3. Device Discontinuation Frequency and Characteristics Among Adolescents and Adults Who Had an Intrauterine Device Inserted at the Institute for Family Health Federally Qualified Health Centers Network in 2011 and Who Had Any Clinical Encounters During the 6-Month Follow-up Period After Insertion
    AdolescentsAdultP Value
    Device continuation status0.7
        No removal or expulsion84 (74.3)169 (76.5)
        Expulsion10 (8.8)14 (6.3)
        Removal19 (16.8)38 (17.2)
    Device discontinuation*
        Expulsion
            Expulsion by type0.20
                Hormonal9 (6.9)11 (3.1)
                Nonhormonal1 (2.0)3 (2.1)
            Expulsion by gravidity†0.70
                04 (4.2)4 (2.9)
                ≥14 (6.3)9 (2.8)
            Expulsion by parity†0.50
                05 (3.5)7 (3.1)
                ≥13 (15.0)6 (2.6)
        Removal
            Median contacts before removal (n)32
            Most common reasons for removal‡
                Pain12 (66.7)20 (54.1)
                Bleeding8 (44.4)11 (29.7)
                Parent-related issues2 (11.1)0 (0)
                Pain during intercourse2 (11.1)0 (0)
                Other0 (0)5 (13.5)
                Concern about harm0 (0)3 (8.1)
            Removal by type†0.73
                Hormonal15 (11.5)26 (7.3)
                Nonhormonal4 (8.0)11 (8.2)
            Removal by gravidity†0.12
                010 (10.4)5 (3.6)
                ≥16 (9.5)28 (8.9)
            Removal by parity†0.11
                015 (10.6)11 (4.9)
                ≥11 (5.0)23 (9.9)
    • Data are number (%) unless otherwise indicated.

    • ↵* Denominator based on baseline data from Table 1.

    • ↵† The total may not sum to 100% because of missing data.

    • ↵‡ The total may sum to >100% because patients could select multiple reasons.

    • View popup
    Table 4. Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI)* Testing and Infection Rates on the Day of Insertion and During the 6-Month Postinsertion Period Among Adolescents and Adults Who Had an Intrauterine Device Inserted at the Institute for Family Health Federally Qualified Health Centers Network in 2011
    Adolescent (n = 182)Adult (n = 502)P Value
    STI testing time<.01
        No testing before insertion29(15.9)188(37.5)
        Within 2 weeks before insertion56(30.7)72(14.3)
        Day of insertion97(53.3)242(48.2)
    Positive STI test on day of insertion.91
        Chlamydia3(3.1)7(2.9)
        Gonorrhea0(0)1(0.4)
    STI testing during postinsertion period†57(52.8)102(47.2).75
    Positive STI test during postinsertion period‡.70
        Chlamydia2(3.5)5(4.9)
        Gonorrhea0(0)0(0)
    • ↵* STI testing includes testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

    • ↵† The postinsertion period included only 108 adolescents and 216 adults.

    • ↵‡ Among those who were tested during post-insertion period.

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of the American Board of Family     Medicine: 27 (6)
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
Vol. 27, Issue 6
November-December 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.
Intrauterine Devices at Six Months: Does Patient Age Matter? Results from an Urban Family Medicine Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Network
(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.
3 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Intrauterine Devices at Six Months: Does Patient Age Matter? Results from an Urban Family Medicine Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Network
Anita Ravi, Linda Prine, Eve Waltermaurer, Natasha Miller, Susan E. Rubin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2014, 27 (6) 822-830; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140091

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Intrauterine Devices at Six Months: Does Patient Age Matter? Results from an Urban Family Medicine Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) Network
Anita Ravi, Linda Prine, Eve Waltermaurer, Natasha Miller, Susan E. Rubin
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine Nov 2014, 27 (6) 822-830; DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2014.06.140091
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

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

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Practice-based Research Networks at the Crossroads of Research Translation
  • 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

  • Adolescents
  • Contraception
  • 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