Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities, 2006. Contraception. 2011;84(5):478–85.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Henshaw SK. Unintended pregnancy in the United States. Fam Plann Perspect. 1995;30(1):24–9, 46.

    Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gentile S. Suicidal mothers. J Inj Violence Res. 2011;3(2):90–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Baydar N. Consequences for children of their birth planning. Fam Plann Perspect. 2012;27(6):228–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Kavanaugh ML, et al. Patients’ attitudes and experiences related to receiving contraception during abortion care. Contraception. 2011;84:585–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Upadhyay UD, et al. Contraceptive discontinuation and repeat unintended pregnancy within 1 year after an abortion. Contraception. 2012;85(1):56–62.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the US. Contraception. 2011;83:397–404.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bednarek P, et al. Immediate versus delayed IUD Insertion after uterine aspiration. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(23):2208–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Steenland MW, et al. Intrauterine contraceptive insertion postabortion: a systematic review. Contraception. 2011;84(5):447–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fox MC, et al. Immediate placement of intrauterine devices after first and second trimester pregnancy termination. Contraception. 2011;83(1):34–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Grimes D, et al. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(6):Art No.:CD001777.

  18. Goodman S, et al. Impact of immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine contraception on repeat abortion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):143–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. WHO medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Fourth edition 2009. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241563888_eng.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2012.

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mosher WD, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. Vital Health Stat 23. 2010;29:1–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Shih G, et al. Racial and ethnic disparities in contraceptive method choice in California. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2011;43(3):173–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Goodman S, et al. Increasing intrauterine contraception use by reducing barriers to post-abortal and interval insertion. Contraception. 2008;78(2):136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Thonneau PF, et al. Contraceptive efficacy of intrauterine devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(3):248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Rivera R, et al. Analysis of client characteristics that may affect early discontinuation of the TCu-380A IUD. Contraception. 1999;60:155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fraser IS. Non-contraceptive health benefits of intrauterine hormonal systems. Contraception. 2010;82(5):396.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dehlendorf C, et al. Disparities in family planning. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(3):214–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Prager S, Darney PD. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2007;75(6 Suppl):S12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lyus R, et al. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Contraception. 2010;81(5):367.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Stanwood NL, et al. Obstetrician-gynecologists and the intrauterine device: a survey of attitudes and practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(2):275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sivin I. Another look at the Dalkon shield: meta-analysis underscores its problems. Contraception. 1993;48(1):1–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Intrauterine device and adolescents. ACOG committee opinion No 392. 2007;1493–1495.

  46. U.S. census bureau. (2011, August 16). State & county Quickfacts: Los Angeles County, CA. http://quickfacts.census.gov Accessed 2 Sept 2012.

  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.

Download references

Conflict of interest

None of the authors have any financial disclosures to make.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Medical Center, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, 2020 Zonal Avenue, Room 220, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    DeShawn Taylor, Carey Watson & Penina Segall-Gutierrez

  2. Department of Family Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Shannon Connolly

  3. Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Sue Ann Ingles

Authors
  1. DeShawn Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shannon Connolly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sue Ann Ingles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carey Watson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Penina Segall-Gutierrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shannon Connolly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Taylor, D., Connolly, S., Ingles, S.A. et al. Immediate Post-Abortion Insertion of Intrauterine Contraceptives (IUC) in a Diverse Urban Population. J Immigrant Minority Health 16, 416–421 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-012-9762-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-012-9762-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation