Postgraduate medical journal · 2016
Barriers and myths that limit the use of intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: a survey of Brazilian gynaecologists.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
da Silva-Filho Agnaldo Lopes, Lira Josefina, Rocha Ana Luiza Lunardi, Carneiro Márcia Mendonça
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To understand the extent to which barriers and misperceptions about intrauterine contraception (IUC) remain among Brazilian gynaecologists, particularly for nulliparous women.
METHODS: An online survey was developed to assess Brazilian gynaecologists' knowledge and attitudes towards IUC. Data collected included demographic and professional data, main barriers when considering IUC for women in general and/or nulliparous women, attitudes towards inclusion of IUC in contraceptive counselling, and opinions on what could increase IUC prescription for nulliparous women. A question regarding knowledge about WHO medical eligibility criteria (WHO MEC) was also included in the survey.
RESULTS: 101 gynaecologists completed the survey. The insertion rate in nulliparous women was 79.2%. Brazilian gynaecologists were more likely to consider IUC in counselling or provide it on request for parous than for nulliparous women (p<0.05) and perceived more complications in nulliparous women. 74.2% of gynaecologists recognised a higher risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)/infertility associated with IUC use in nulliparous women than in parous women. Difficult and painful insertion were also relevant for 83.2% and 77.3% of the gynaecologists, respectively. Respondents showed a high level of awareness of the WHO MEC classification.
CONCLUSIONS: The three most commonly reported barriers to considering IUC as a contraceptive option for nulliparous woman were concerns about PID and difficult or painful insertion. The challenge is to ensure that gynaecologists understand the evidence and do not disregard IUC as a potential option for nulliparous women.
METHODS: An online survey was developed to assess Brazilian gynaecologists' knowledge and attitudes towards IUC. Data collected included demographic and professional data, main barriers when considering IUC for women in general and/or nulliparous women, attitudes towards inclusion of IUC in contraceptive counselling, and opinions on what could increase IUC prescription for nulliparous women. A question regarding knowledge about WHO medical eligibility criteria (WHO MEC) was also included in the survey.
RESULTS: 101 gynaecologists completed the survey. The insertion rate in nulliparous women was 79.2%. Brazilian gynaecologists were more likely to consider IUC in counselling or provide it on request for parous than for nulliparous women (p<0.05) and perceived more complications in nulliparous women. 74.2% of gynaecologists recognised a higher risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID)/infertility associated with IUC use in nulliparous women than in parous women. Difficult and painful insertion were also relevant for 83.2% and 77.3% of the gynaecologists, respectively. Respondents showed a high level of awareness of the WHO MEC classification.
CONCLUSIONS: The three most commonly reported barriers to considering IUC as a contraceptive option for nulliparous woman were concerns about PID and difficult or painful insertion. The challenge is to ensure that gynaecologists understand the evidence and do not disregard IUC as a potential option for nulliparous women.