↓ Skip to main content

Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
175 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Provider and lay perspectives on intra-uterine contraception: a global review
Published in
Reproductive Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0380-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marina A. S. Daniele, John Cleland, Lenka Benova, Moazzam Ali

Abstract

Intra-uterine contraception (IUC) involves the use of an intra-uterine device (IUD), a highly effective, long-acting, reversible contraceptive method. Historically, the popularity of IUC has waxed and waned across different world regions, due to policy choices and shifts in public opinion. However, despite its advantages and cost-effectiveness for programmes, IUC's contribution to contraceptive prevalence is currently negligible in many countries. This paper presents the results of a systematic review of the global literature on provider and lay perspectives on IUC. It aims to shed light on the reasons for low use of IUC and reflect on potential opportunities for the method's promotion. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in four peer-reviewed journals and four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, and Global Health). Screening resulted in the inclusion of 68 relevant publications. Most included studies were conducted in areas where IUD use is moderate or low. Findings are similar across these areas. Many providers have low or uneven levels of knowledge on IUC and limited training. Many wrongly believe that IUC entails serious side effects such as pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), and are reluctant to provide it to entire eligible categories, such as HIV-positive women. There is particular resistance to providing IUC to teenagers and nulliparae. Provider opinions may be more favourable towards the hormonal IUD. Some health-care providers choose IUC for themselves. Many members of the public have low knowledge and unfounded misconceptions about IUC, such as the fear of infertility. Some are concerned about the insertion and removal processes, and about its effect on menses. However, users of IUC are generally satisfied and report a number of benefits. Peers and providers exert a strong influence on women's attitudes. Both providers and lay people have inaccurate knowledge and misconceptions about IUC, which contribute to explaining its low use. However, many reported concerns and fears could be alleviated through correct information. Concerted efforts to train providers, combined with demand creation initiatives, could therefore boost the method's popularity. Further research is needed on provider and lay perspectives on IUDs in low- and middle-income countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 175 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 18%
Researcher 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 7%
Other 11 6%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 49 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 16%
Social Sciences 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Decision Sciences 5 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 59 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,785,026
of 11,862,957 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#323
of 727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,905
of 272,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#16
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,862,957 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.