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

References

  1. 1.↵
    Winnable battles: teen pregnancy. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; April 2013. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/winnablebattles/teenpregnancy/index.html. Accessed June 30, 2013.
  2. 2.↵
    Fact sheet: unintended pregnancy in the United States. New York: Guttmacher Institute; December 2013. Available from: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html. Accessed September 21, 2014.
  3. 3.↵
    A sketch of community health centers chart book 2013. Bethesda (MD): National Association of Community Health Centers. Available from: http://www.nachc.com/client/Chartbook2013.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2014.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Wood S,
    2. Beeson T,
    3. Bruen B,
    4. et al
    . Scope of family planning services available in federally qualified health centers. Contraception 2014;89:85–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Beeson T,
    2. Wood S,
    3. Bruen B,
    4. Goldberg DG,
    5. Mead H,
    6. Rosenbaum S
    . Accessibility of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). Contraception 2014;89:91–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Grimes DA
    . Forgettable contraception. Contraception 2009;80:497–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Committee on Adolescent Health Care Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group; The 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
  8. 8.↵
    1. Finer LB,
    2. Jerman J,
    3. Kavanaugh ML
    . Changes in use of long-acting contraceptive methods in the United States, 2007–2009. Fertil Steril 2012;98:893–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    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
  10. 10.↵
    1. Michie L,
    2. Cameron ST
    . Improving the uptake of long acting reversible contraception: a review. Minerva Ginecol 2013;65:241–52.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Contraceptive methods available to patients of office-based physicians and Title X clinics—United States, 2009–2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2011;60:1–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Greenberg KB,
    2. Makino KK,
    3. Coles MS
    . Factors associated with provision of long-acting reversible contraception among adolescent health care providers. J Adolesc Health 2013;52:372–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    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
  14. 14.↵
    1. Rubin SE,
    2. Davis K,
    3. McKee MD
    . Providing long-acting reversible contraception to adolescents: what are urban primary care providers thinking? J Adolesc Health 2012;50(2 Suppl):S14–5.
    OpenUrl
  15. 15.↵
    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
  16. 16.↵
    1. Diaz VA,
    2. Hughes N,
    3. Dickerson LM,
    4. Wessell AM,
    5. Carek PJ
    . Clinician knowledge about use of intrauterine devices in adolescents in South Carolina AHEC. Fam Med 2011;43:407–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Berenson AB,
    2. Tan A,
    3. Hirth JM,
    4. Wilkinson GS
    . Complications and continuation of intrauterine device use among commercially insured teenagers. Obstet Gyneco1 2013;121:951–8.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Carr S,
    2. Espey E
    . Intrauterine devices and pelvic inflammatory disease among adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2013;52(4 Suppl):S22–8.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Grunloh DS,
    2. Casner T,
    3. Secura GM,
    4. Peipert JF,
    5. Madden T
    . Characteristics associated with discontinuation of long-acting reversible contraception within the first 6 months of use. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:1214–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Alton TM,
    2. Brock GN,
    3. Yang D,
    4. Wilking DA,
    5. Hertweck SP,
    6. Loveless MB
    . Retrospective review of intrauterine device in adolescent and young women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2012;25:195–200.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Bayer LL,
    2. Hillard PJA
    . Use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system for medical indications in adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2013;52(4 Suppl):S54–8.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Teal SB,
    2. Sheeder J
    . IUD use in adolescent mothers: retention, failure and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception 2012;85:270–4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    Health Resources and Services Administration. The Affordable Care Act and health centers. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2014. Available from: http://bphc.hrsa.gov/about/healthcenterfactsheet.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2014.
  24. 24.↵
    1. Chandra A,
    2. Copen CE,
    3. Stephen EH
    . Infertility and impaired fecundity in the United States, 1982–2010: data from the National Survey of Family Growth. Natl Health Stat Report 2013;(67):1–18, 1 p following 19.
  25. 25.↵
    1. Aoun J,
    2. Dines VA,
    3. Stovall DW,
    4. Mete M,
    5. Nelson CB,
    6. Gomez-Lobo V
    . Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:585–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Garbers S,
    2. Haines-Stephan J,
    3. Lipton Y,
    4. Meserve A,
    5. Spieler L,
    6. Chiasson MA
    . Continuation of copper-containing intrauterine devices at 6 months. Contraception 2013;87:101–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Folger SG,
    2. Jamieson DJ,
    3. Godfrey EM,
    4. Zapata LB,
    5. Curtis KM
    . Evidence-based guidance on Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use: identification of research gaps. Contraception 2013;87:517–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Bayer LL,
    2. Jensen JT,
    3. Li H,
    4. Nichols MD,
    5. Bednarek PH
    . Adolescent experience with intrauterine device insertion and use: a retrospective cohort study. Contraception 2012;86:443–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Dickerson LM,
    2. Diaz VA,
    3. Jordon J,
    4. et al
    . Satisfaction, early removal, and side effects associated with long-acting reversible contraception. Fam Med 2013;45:701–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    2008 Sexually transmitted diseases surveillance. Sexually transmitted diseases in the United States, 2008: National surveillance data for chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis. Atlanta (GA): Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats08/trends.htm. Accessed September 21, 2014.
  31. 31.↵
    1. Markham MR,
    2. Maggio L,
    3. Shah UR,
    4. Sangi-Haghpeykar H,
    5. Raine SP
    . Effects of routine screening for gonorrhea and chlamydia before intrauterine device insertion. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123(Suppl 1):11S.
    OpenUrl
  32. 32.↵
    1. Bergin A,
    2. Tristan S,
    3. Terplan M,
    4. Gilliam ML,
    5. Whitaker AK
    . A missed opportunity for care: two-visit IUD insertion protocols inhibit placement. Contraception 2012;86:694–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    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
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.
1 + 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