Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Intrauterine Device

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Contraception for Adolescent and Young Adult Women

  • 1197 Accesses

Abstract

The intrauterine device (IUD) may be an ideal contraceptive method for adolescents. Adolescents have high rates of unintended pregnancy and rapid repeat pregnancy and are less successful than older women in the use of short-acting methods such as oral contraceptives. The IUD holds promise for reducing unintended pregnancy in adolescents given the single act of motivation required to initiate and maintain use, top tier effectiveness, low complication rates, favorable side effect profile, and high continuation rates. Although evidence specific to adolescents and IUD use is limited, existing data are reassuring that adolescents experience few complications and enjoy similar high satisfaction rates as older women. A number of ongoing studies will yield additional guidance in the use of IUDs in adolescents.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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 

  2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(RR–4):1–86.

    Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Committee Opinion No. 539. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120:983–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kavanaugh ML, Jerman J, Hubacher D, Kost K, Finer L. Characteristics of women in the United States who use long-acting reversible contraceptive methods. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:1349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ortiz ME, Croxatto H. Copper-T intrauterine device and levonorgestrel intrauterine system: biological bases of their mechanism of action. Contraception. 2007;75(6 Suppl):S16–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rivera R, Yacobson I, Grimes D. The mechanism of action of hormonal contraceptives and intrauterine contraceptive devices. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:1263–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Trussell J. Contraceptive failure in the United States. Contraception. 2011;83:397–404.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Winner B, Peipert J, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Madden T, Allsworth J, Secura G. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(21):1998–2007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diaz J, Pinto A, Bahamondes L, et al. Performance of the copper T200 in parous adolescents: are copper IUDs suitable for these women? Contraception. 1993;48:23–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Teal SB, Sheeder J. IUD use in adolescent mothers: retention, failure and reasons for discontinuation. Contraception. 2012;85:270–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Toma A, Jamieson MA. Revisiting the intrauterine contraceptive device in adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2006;19:291–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Paterson H, Ashton J, Harrison-Woolrych M. A nationwide cohort study of the use of the levonorgestrel intrauterine device in New Zealand adolescents. Contraception. 2009;59:433–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Raine TR, Foster-Rosales A, Upadhyay UD, Boyer CB, Brown BA, Sokoloff A, Harper CC. One-year contraceptive continuation and pregnancy in adolescent girls and women initiating hormonal contraceptives. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:363–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Godfrey EM, Memmel LM, Neustadt A, Shah M, Nicosia A, Moorthie M, Gilliam M. Intrauterine contraception for adolescents aged 14-18years: a multicenter randomized pilot study of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared to the Copper T-380 A. Contraception. 2010;81:123–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deans EI, Grimes DA. Intrauterine devices for adolescents: a systematic review. Contraception. 2009;79:418–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stevens-Simon C, Kelly L, Kulick R. A village would be nice but… it takes a long-acting contraceptive to prevent repeat adolescent pregnancies. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:60–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zibners A, Cromer BA, Hayes J. Comparison of continuation rates for hormonal contraception among adolescents. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 1999;12:90–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. World Health Organization. Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. 4th ed. Geneva: WHO; 2009. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010. Accessed 5 Mar 2012.

  20. Tepper N, Zapata L, Jamieson D, Curtis K. Use of intrauterine devices in women with uterine anatomic abnormalities. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109(1):52–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2013. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2013;62(5):1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stanwood NL, Bradley KA. Young pregnant women’s knowledge of modern intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:1417–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Whitaker AK, Johnson LM, Harwood B, Chiappetta L, Creinin MD, Gold MA. Adolescent and young adult women’s knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device. Contraception. 2008;78:211–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwarz EB, Kavanaugh M, Douglas E, Dubowitz T, Creinin MD. Interest in intrauterine contraception among seekers of emergency contraception and pregnancy testing. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:833–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Harper CC, Blum M, de Thiel Bocanegra H, Darney PD, Speidel JJ, Policar M, et al. Challenges in translating evidence to practice. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1359–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Use of the Mirena LNG-IUS and Paragard CuT380A intrauterine devices in nulliparous women. Society of Family Planning Guideline #20092. Posted with permission of Elsevier, Inc. Originally published in Contraception 81:5(2010), pp. 367–371.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hubacher D, Lara-Ricalde R, Taylor DJ, Guerra-Infante F, Guzman-Rodriguez R. Use of copper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:561–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hubacher D, Reyes V, Lillo S, Zepeda A, Chen PL, Croxatto H. Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1272–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Raneri LG, Wiemann CM. Social ecological predictors of repeat adolescent pregnancy. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007;39:39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Weston M, Martins S, Neustadt A, Gilliam M. Factors influencing uptake of intrauterine devices among postpartum adolescents: a qualitative study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206:40. e1–7.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Tocce K, Sheeder J, Python J, Teal SB. Long acting reversible contraception in postpartum adolescents: Early initiation of etonogestrel implant is superior to IUDs in the outpatient setting. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2012;25:59–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, MSC10 5580, 1, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Eve Espey M.D., M.P.H. & Tanya Pasternack M.D.

Authors
  1. Eve Espey M.D., M.P.H.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanya Pasternack M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eve Espey M.D., M.P.H. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology Section of Family Planning and Contraceptive Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Amy Whitaker

  2. Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology Section of Family Planning and Contraceptive Research, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Melissa Gilliam

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Espey, E., Pasternack, T. (2014). The Intrauterine Device. In: Whitaker, A., Gilliam, M. (eds) Contraception for Adolescent and Young Adult Women. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6579-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6579-9_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6578-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6579-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation