Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 416–421 | Cite as

Immediate Post-Abortion Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptives (IUC) in a Diverse Urban Population

  • DeShawn Taylor
  • Shannon Connolly
  • Sue Ann Ingles
  • Carey Watson
  • Penina Segall-Gutierrez
Original Paper


Ethnic minority women have a higher incidence of unintended pregnancy and abortion than Caucasian women, with significant individual and social implications. Post-abortion intrauterine contraceptive (IUC) use may reduce future unintended pregnancy. This was a retrospective review of 265 women undergoing abortion at a Los Angeles County Reproductive Options Clinic. Demographic factors, reproductive history, and post-abortion contraceptive choice were evaluated and analyzed. The population was predominantly Latina (73 %) and single, with a mean age of 27. Immediate post-abortion IUC insertion was chosen by 48 % overall and more frequently by Latinas (55 %) than by African Americans (33 %) or Asians (43 %) (p = 0.02). IUC use increased with age, undesired future fertility, increasing gravidity, and history of previous abortion in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, IUC use increased with Latina ethnicity and increasing gravidity. In a clinic serving low-income urban women in Los Angeles, post-abortal IUC uptake is highest among Latinas and those with prior pregnancies. Future research should examine reasons for and barriers to IUC uptake in diverse communities and methods to improve post-abortion IUC uptake to prevent subsequent unintended pregnancies.


Intrauterine devices Contraception Induced abortion Minority groups 


  1. 1.
    Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception. 2011;84(5):478–85.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect. 1995;30(1):24–9, 46.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mohllajee AP, et al. Pregnancy intention and its relationship to birth and maternal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(3):19–21.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown JS, et al. Previous abortion and the risk of low birth weight and preterm births. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(1):16–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gentile S. Suicidal mothers. J Inj Violence Res. 2011;3(2):90–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gipson JD, et al. The effects of unintended pregnancy on infant, child, and parental health: a review of the literature. Stud Fam Plann. 2008;39(1):18–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kost K, et al. The effects of pregnancy planning status on birth outcomes and infant care. Fam Plann Perspect. 1998;30(5):223–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baydar N. Consequences for children of their birth planning. Fam Plann Perspect. 2012;27(6):228–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pazol K, et al. Abortion surveillance--United States, 2008. MMWR. Surveillance summaries: morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveill Summ/CDC. 2011;60(15):1–41.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kavanaugh ML, et al. Patients’ attitudes and experiences related to receiving contraception during abortion care. Contraception. 2011;84:585–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Upadhyay UD, et al. Contraceptive discontinuation and repeat unintended pregnancy within 1 year after an abortion. Contraception. 2012;85(1):56–62.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the US. Contraception. 2011;83:397–404.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bednarek P, et al. Immediate versus delayed IUD Insertion after uterine aspiration. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2208–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steenland MW, et al. Intrauterine contraceptive insertion postabortion: a systematic review. Contraception. 2011;84(5):447–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fox MC, et al. Immediate placement of intrauterine devices after first and second trimester pregnancy termination. Contraception. 2011;83(1):34–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foster DG, et al. Cost savings from the provision of specific methods of contraception in a publicly funded program. Am J Pub Health. 2009;99(3):446–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grimes D, et al. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):Art No.:CD001777.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goodman S, et al. Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):143–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    WHO medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Fourth edition 2009. Accessed 10 Nov 2012.
  20. 20.
    Dehlendorf C, et al. Race, ethnicity and differences in contraception among low-income women: methods received by family PACT clients, California, 2001–2007. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43(3):181–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. Vital Health Stat 23. 2010;29:1–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shih G, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in contraceptive method choice in California. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43(3):173–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kavanaugh ML, et al. Perceived and insurance-related barriers to the provision of contraceptive services in U.S. abortion care settings. Women’s Health Issues. 2011;21(3 Suppl):S26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goodman S, et al. Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):136–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kittur ND, et al. Comparision of contraceptive use between the contraceptive CHOICE Project and state and national data. Contraception. 2011;83(5):479–85.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thonneau PF, et al. Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(3):248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hidalgo M, et al. Bleeding patterns and clinical performance of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) up to 2 years. Contraception. 2002;65(2):129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rivera R, et al. Analysis of client characteristics that may affect early discontinuation of the TCu-380A IUD. Contraception. 1999;60:155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buttini MJ, et al. The effect of the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system on endometrial hyperplasia: an Australian study and systematic review. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;49(3):316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fraser IS. Non-contraceptive health benefits of intrauterine hormonal systems. Contraception. 2010;82(5):396.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kavanaugh ML, et al. Characteristics of women in the United States who use long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:1349–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Horner JR, et al. Withdrawal (coitus interruptus) as a sexual risk reduction strategy: perspectives from African–American adolescents. Arch Sex Behav. 2009;38(5):779–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dehlendorf C, et al. Disparities in family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):214–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Thorburn S, Bogart LM. Conspiracy beliefs about birth control: barriers to pregnancy prevention among African Americans of reproductive age. Health Educ Behav. 2005;32(4):474–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stern AM. Sterilized in the name of public health: race, immigration, and reproductive control in modern California. Am J Public Health. 2005;95(7):1128–38.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Prager S, Darney PD. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2007;75(6 Suppl):S12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lyus R, et al. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2010;81(5):367.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suhonen S, et al. Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: a comparative study. Contraception. 2004;69(5):407–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hov GG, et al. Use of IUD and subsequent fertility—follow-up after participation in a randomized clinical trial. Contraception. 2007;75(2):88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rubin S, et al. Underuse of the IUD in contraceptive care and training. Fam Plann Perspect. 2010;42(6):387–8.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stanwood NL, et al. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(2):275.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stubbs E, Schamp A. The evidence is in. why are IUDs still out? Family physicians’ perceptions of risk and indications. Can Fam Physician. 2008;54:560–6.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sivin I. Another look at the Dalkon shield: meta-analysis underscores its problems. Contraception. 1993;48(1):1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(4):983–8.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Intrauterine device and adolescents. ACOG committee opinion No 392. 2007;1493–1495.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    U.S. census bureau. (2011, August 16). State & county Quickfacts: Los Angeles County, CA. Accessed 2 Sept 2012.
  47. 47.
    Los Angeles department of public health, office of women’s health. Health indicators for women in Los Angeles County: highlighting disparities by ethnicity and poverty level. Feb 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • DeShawn Taylor
    • 1
  • Shannon Connolly
    • 2
  • Sue Ann Ingles
    • 3
  • Carey Watson
    • 1
  • Penina Segall-Gutierrez
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Medical CenterUniversity of Southern California Keck School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family MedicineUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of Preventive MedicineUniversity of Southern California Keck School of MedicineLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations