{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,1,8]],"date-time":"2026-01-08T00:40:34Z","timestamp":1767832834699,"version":"3.49.0"},"reference-count":24,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2012,10,29]],"date-time":"2012-10-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1351468800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Aust NZ J Obst Gynaeco"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,12]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Background<\/jats:title><jats:p>Intrauterine devices (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content>s) provide highly effective contraception for women worldwide. Reluctance to insert <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content>s in the primary care setting may relate to concern about potential difficulty and complications, particularly in nulliparous women.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Aims<\/jats:title><jats:p>To determine the practitioner, patient and procedural factors associated with abandoned <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content> insertion, practitioner\u2010reported difficulty of insertion and adverse events during <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content> insertions in the family planning setting.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>This was a prospective study over a 12\u2010month period of consecutive <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content> insertions in four family planning clinics across <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">N<\/jats:styled-content>ew <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">S<\/jats:styled-content>outh <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">W<\/jats:styled-content>ales and <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">Q<\/jats:styled-content>ueensland. Patient, practitioner and device\u2010related factors associated with abandoned <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content> insertion, practitioner\u2010reported ease of insertion and immediate insertion\u2010related adverse events were analysed using logistic regression.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>Of 996 insertion procedures, successful insertion occurred in 95%, and 90% were reported as easy by the inserting doctor, including 80% of those in nulliparous women. Patient characteristics associated with an abandoned insertion were nulliparity (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AOR<\/jats:styled-content> 5.19; 2.49\u201310.82) or caesarean section\u2010only deliveries (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AOR<\/jats:styled-content> 5.38; 2.58\u201311.22) and with practitioner\u2010reported difficult insertion, nulliparity alone (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AOR<\/jats:styled-content> 1.98; 1.11\u20133.54). Practitioners inserting fewer than 100 <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content>s over the 12\u2010month study period more frequently rated insertions as difficult (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AOR<\/jats:styled-content> 1.76; 1.08\u20132.88). Complications occurred in 34 women and were more likely in nulliparous women (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AOR<\/jats:styled-content> 4.51; 2.16\u20139.39).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title><jats:p>Most <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">IUD<\/jats:styled-content>s can be successfully inserted, even in nulliparous women, in a primary care setting. Referral to a specialist may be appropriate for some women who are nulliparous or had caesarean section\u2010only deliveries, depending on the experience of the practitioner.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1111\/ajo.12007","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2012,10,29]],"date-time":"2012-10-29T18:03:38Z","timestamp":1351533818000},"page":"534-539","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":19,"title":["Ease of intrauterine contraceptive device insertion in family planning settings"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"52","author":[{"given":"Caroline","family":"Harvey","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Family Planning Queensland Brisbane Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Deborah","family":"Bateson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Family Planning NSW Sydney Australia"},{"name":"Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology The University of Sydney Sydney Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Jeany","family":"Wattimena","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology The University of Sydney Sydney Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Kirsten I.","family":"Black","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Discipline of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Neonatology The University of Sydney Sydney Australia"},{"name":"RPA Women's and Babies Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Sydney Australia"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2012,10,29]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_10_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1467-842X.2003.tb00810.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1093\/humrep\/deg215"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ogc.2007.02.004"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2009.04.027"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_6_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/13625187.2011.580864"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_7_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2010.01136.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0029-7844(01)01726-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2010.01.010"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/0140-6736(92)91904-M"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(00)02699-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_12_1","volume-title":"Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use","author":"World Health Organization","year":"2010"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2006.08.022"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1002\/pds.875"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2011.05.012"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2003.11.008"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3109\/13625187.2011.558222"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_18_1","unstructured":"IBM.SPSS Statistics [program]. Version 20 version 2011."},{"key":"e_1_2_10_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0010-7824(02)00413-4"},{"issue":"3","key":"e_1_2_10_20_1","first-page":"206","article-title":"Comparative study of safety and efficacy of IUD insertions by physicians and nursing personnel in Brazil","volume":"29","author":"Lassner KJ","year":"1995","journal-title":"Bull Pan Am Health Organ"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1783\/147118903101197854"},{"issue":"1179","key":"e_1_2_10_22_1","first-page":"U538","article-title":"Insertion of intrauterine devices: a comparison of experience with Mirena and Multiload Cu 375 during post\u2010marketing monitoring in New Zealand","volume":"116","author":"Harrison\u2010Woolrych M","year":"2003","journal-title":"N Z Med J"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.5694\/j.1326-5377.2011.tb02988.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1080\/ejc.8.3.150.155"},{"key":"e_1_2_10_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0010-7824(98)00029-8"}],"container-title":["Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fajo.12007","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/ajo.12007","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,31]],"date-time":"2023-10-31T01:50:56Z","timestamp":1698717056000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/ajo.12007"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2012,10,29]]},"references-count":24,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2012,12]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/ajo.12007"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/ajo.12007","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0004-8666","1479-828X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0004-8666","type":"print"},{"value":"1479-828X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2012,10,29]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2012-04-20","order":0,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2012-09-07","order":1,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2012-10-29","order":2,"name":"published","label":"Published","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}