Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Postpartum LARC: Best Practices, Policy and Public Health Implications

  • Family Planning (A Burke, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review current literature highlighting effective strategies and policies in implementation of postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) as well as outcomes of postpartum LARC use.

Recent Findings

The use of postpartum LARC is highly desired by patients, effective at reducing rates of unintended and short interval pregnancies, and has demonstrated significant health care savings. Despite these positive outcomes associated with postpartum LARC use, availability of immediate postpartum LARC is limited in the majority of US hospitals. Barriers to the provision of postpartum LARC include lack of physician education and comfort in placing postpartum LARC, lack of effective reimbursement structures, lack of streamlined protocols for identifying women who are candidates for postpartum LARC, and lack of structural support for the provision of LARC.

Summary

Providers can eliminate barriers to postpartum LARC access once patients are discharged from the hospital by enhancing efforts to identify patients who are at high risk of no follow-up and by eliminating two-step protocols for LARC insertion. A step-wise strategical approach involving planning, implementation, and sustainability is effective for initiating postpartum LARC programs in hospitals. Enhancing physician education, collaborating among hospital-wide stakeholders, and reforming reimbursement strategies are all key components of successful implementation plans. Future research should continue to demonstrate cost effectiveness of postpartum LARC, and efforts to disseminate this information to other hospitals should be enhanced. Research should also target postpartum LARC insertion techniques to overcome variability of expulsion rate data and elucidate superior postpartum insertion techniques. Lastly, research should target identification strategies for women who desire postpartum LARC; for example, protocol development for streamlining access to patient’s contraceptive preferences from antenatal care to labor and delivery care, or a modified labor and delivery intake form.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Goldthwaite LM, Shaw KA. Immediate postpartum provision of long-acting reversible contraception. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(6):460–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Braniff K, Gomez E, Muller RA. Randomised clinical trial to assess satisfaction with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system inserted at caesarean section compared to postpartum placement. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;55(3):279–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Celen S, Moroy P, Sucak A, Aktulay A, Danisman N. Clinical outcomes of early postplacental insertion of intrauterine contraceptive devices. Contraception. 2004;69(4):279–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. White K, Teal SB, Potter JE. Contraception after delivery and short interpregnancy intervals among women in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(6):1471–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermudez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Birth spacing and risk of adverse perinatal outcomes: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295(15):1809–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 121: Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(1):184–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Prager SW, McCoy EE. Immediate postpartum intrauterine contraception insertion. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2015;42(4):569–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Damle LF, Gohari AC, McEvoy AK, Desale SY, Gomez-Lobo V. Early initiation of postpartum contraception: does it decrease rapid repeat pregnancy in adolescents? J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015;28(1):57–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Allsworth JE, Petrosky E, Madden T, Eisenberg D, et al. Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117(5):1105–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. O'Neil-Callahan M, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Madden T, Secura G. Twenty-four-month continuation of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):1083–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lester F, Kakaire O, Byamugisha J, Averbach S, Fortin J, Maurer R, et al. Intracesarean insertion of the Copper T380A versus 6 weeks postcesarean: a randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 2015;91(3):198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Washington CI, Jamshidi R, Thung SF, Nayeri UA, Caughey AB, Werner EF. Timing of postpartum intrauterine device placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(1):131–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Curtis KM, Peipert JF. Long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(5):461–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dahlke JD, Terpstra ER, Ramseyer AM, Busch JM, Rieg T, Magann EF. Postpartum insertion of levonorgestrel—intrauterine system at three time periods: a prospective randomized pilot study. Contraception. 2011;84(3):244–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lopez LM, Bernholc A, Hubacher D, Stuart G, Van Vliet HA. Immediate postpartum insertion of intrauterine device for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;6:CD003036.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bonilla Rosales F, Aguilar Zamudio ME, Cazares Montero Mde L, Hernandez Ortiz ME, Luna Ruiz MA. Factors for expulsion of intrauterine device Tcu380A applied immediately postpartum and after a delayed period. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2005;43(1):5–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bryant AG, Bauer AE, Stuart GS, Levi EE, Zerden ML, Danvers A, et al. Etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant for postpartum adolescents: a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2016;30(3):389–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Woo I, Seifert S, Hendricks D, Jamshidi RM, Burke AE, Fox MC. Six-month and 1-year continuation rates following postpartum insertion of implants and intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2015;92(6):532–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Levi EE, Stuart GS, Zerden ML, Garrett JM, Bryant AG. Intrauterine device placement during cesarean delivery and continued use 6 months postpartum: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):5–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Cohen R, Sheeder J, Arango N, Teal SB, Tocce K. Twelve-month contraceptive continuation and repeat pregnancy among young mothers choosing postdelivery contraceptive implants or postplacental intrauterine devices. Contraception. 2016;93(2):178–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. •• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion No. 670: immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(2):e32–7. ACOG’s summary of evidence supporting the provision of immediate postpartum LARC. Strategies to implement postpartum LARC programs are also discussed. Also, refer to ACOG’s online support: www.acog.org/LARCImmediatePostpartum

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dragoman MV, Jatlaoui T, Nanda K, Curtis KM, Gaffield ME. Research gaps identified during the 2014 update of the WHO medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use and selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. Contraception. 2016;94(3):195–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, Berry-Bibee E, Horton LG, Zapata LB, et al. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2016;65(3):1–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Zerden ML, Tang JH, Stuart GS, Norton DR, Verbiest SB, Brody S. Barriers to receiving long-acting reversible contraception in the postpartum period. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(6):616–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Holland E, Michelis LD, Sonalkar S, Curry CL. Barriers to immediate post-placental intrauterine devices among attending level educators. Womens Health Issues. 2015;25(4):355–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Conti J, Shaw K. Update on long-acting reversible methods. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(6):471–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lotke PS. Increasing use of long-acting reversible contraception to decrease unplanned pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2015;42(4):557–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harney C, Dude A, Haider S. Factors associated with short interpregnancy interval in women who plan postpartum LARC: a retrospective study. Contraception. 2017;95(3):245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bergin A, Tristan S, Terplan M, Gilliam ML, Whitaker AKA. Missed opportunity for care: two-visit IUD insertion protocols inhibit placement. Contraception. 2012;86(6):694–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bryant AS, Haas JS, McElrath TF, McCormick MC. Predictors of compliance with the postpartum visit among women living in healthy start project areas. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(6):511–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Baldwin MK, Edelman AB, Lim JY, Nichols MD, Bednarek PH, Jensen JT. Intrauterine device placement at 3 versus 6 weeks postpartum: a randomized trial. Contraception. 2016;93(4):356–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chen BA, Reeves MF, Hayes JL, Hohmann HL, Perriera LK, Creinin MD. Postplacental or delayed insertion of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device after vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1079–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Sober S, Schreiber CA. Postpartum contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(4):763–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Xu JX, Rivera R, Dunson TR, Zhuang LQ, Yang XL, Ma GT, et al. A comparative study of two techniques used in immediate postplacental insertion (IPPI) of the Copper T-380A IUD in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Contraception. 1996;54(1):33–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Hanley K, Huber DH, Postpartum IUDS. Keys for success. Contraception. 1992;45(4):351–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hayes JL, Cwiak C, Goedken P, Zieman MA. Pilot clinical trial of ultrasound-guided postplacental insertion of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device. Contraception. 2007;76(4):292–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Braga GC, Ferriolli E, Quintana SM, Ferriani RA, Pfrimer K, Vieira CS. Immediate postpartum initiation of etonogestrel-releasing implant: a randomized controlled trial on breastfeeding impact. Contraception. 2015;92(6):536–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hofler LG, Cordes S, Cwiak CA, Goedken P, Jamieson DJ, Kottke M. Implementing immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception programs. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rankin KM, Kroelinger CD, DeSisto CL, Pliska E, Akbarali S, Mackie CN, et al. Application of implementation science methodology to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception policy roll-out across states. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20(Suppl 1):173–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Gariepy AM, Duffy JY, Xu X. Cost-effectiveness of immediate compared with delayed postpartum etonogestrel implant insertion. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(1):47–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. • Kroelinger CD, Waddell LF, Goodman DA, Pliska E, Rudolph C, Ahmed E, et al. Working with state health departments on emerging issues in maternal and child health: immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptives. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015;24(9):693–701. Excellent summary of multi-disciplinary forum on policy development and implementation of providing postpartum LARC. Specific and practical pointers are given to address these challenges, including useful online resources.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Moniz MH, Chang T, Davis MM, Forman J, Landgraf J, Dalton VK. Medicaid administrator experiences with the implementation of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Womens Health Issues. 2016;26(3):313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Moniz MH, Dalton VK, Davis MM, Forman J, Iott B, Landgraf J, et al. Characterization of Medicaid policy for immediate postpartum contraception. Contraception. 2015;92(6):523–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Sundstrom B, Baker-Whitcomb A, DeMaria AL. A qualitative analysis of long-acting reversible contraception. Matern Child Health J. 2015;19(7):1507–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rodriguez MI, Evans M, Espey E. Advocating for immediate postpartum LARC: increasing access, improving outcomes, and decreasing cost. Contraception. 2014;90(5):468–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Potter JE, Hubert C, White K. The availability and use of postpartum LARC in Mexico and among Hispanics in the United States. Matern Child Health J. 2017;21(9):1744–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Holland A, Watkins D. Flying start health visitors’ views of implementing the Newborn Behavioural Observation: barriers and facilitating factors. Community Pract. 2015;88(6):33–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Goldthwaite LM, Sheeder J, Teal SB, Tocce KM. Comfort with skills and knowledge after immediate postpartum intrauterine device training. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(Suppl 1):6S–11S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Thompson KM, Rocca CH, Kohn JE, Goodman S, Stern L, Blum M, et al. Public funding for contraception, provider training, and use of highly effective contraceptives: Aa cluster randomized trial. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(3):541–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. • Moniz M, Chang T, Heisler M, Dalton VK. Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception: the time is now. Contraception. 2016;95(4):335–8. Excellent review of implementation challenges to providing postpartum LARC. Specific and practical pointers are given to address these challenges, including useful online resources.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Singh S, Das V, Agarwal A, Dewan R, Mittal P, Bhamrah R, et al. A dedicated postpartum intrauterine device inserter: pilot experience and proof of concept. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2016;4(1):132–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. [Available from: http://www.astho.org/Programs/Maternal-and-Child-Health/Documents/LARC-Immediate-Postpartum-Learning-Community-Full-Report/.

  53. Department of Health and Human Services Informational Bulletin. State Medicaid Payment Approaches to Improve Access to Long-Acting Reversible Contraception [Available from: https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/cib040816.pdf.

  54. Sonfield A, Kost K, Gold RB, Finer LB. The public costs of births resulting from unintended pregnancies: national and state-level estimates. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43(2):94–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Abma JC, Martinez GM, Copen CE. Teenagers in the United States: sexual activity, contraceptive use, and childbearing, national survey of family growth 2006–2008. Vital Health Stat. 2010;23(30):1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Eisenberg D, McNicholas C, Peipert JF. Cost as a barrier to long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) use in adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2013;52(4 Suppl):S59–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology, George Washington University Hospital, 900 23rd Ave NW, Washington, DC, 20037, USA

    Erryn Tappy

  2. George Washington University School of Medicine, 2150 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC, 20037, USA

    Roxanne Jamshidi

Authors
  1. Erryn Tappy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roxanne Jamshidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roxanne Jamshidi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Erryn Tappy declares that she has no conflict of interest. Roxanne Jamshidi reports personal fees from Merck, outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Family Planning

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tappy, E., Jamshidi, R. Postpartum LARC: Best Practices, Policy and Public Health Implications. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 6, 310–317 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-017-0225-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-017-0225-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation