[The family doctor facing IUD insertion]

Review OA: closed
⚙ AI-generated summary by qwen3.7-flash+body, 2026-09-17 ⓘ

This paper discusses the role of family doctors in intrauterine device insertion, supported by references to contraceptive guidelines and clinical practices.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-17 · read from full text ⓘ

This article reviews the role of general practitioners in intrauterine device insertion, highlighting barriers to practice such as lack of training and negative attitudes among family doctors. It cites various studies on IUD efficacy, safety profiles, and management of complications like expulsion or infection to support clinical decision-making. The text references a study by Cobellis et al. demonstrating that a danazol-loaded intrauterine device reduces dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia associated with endometriosis. Relevance to endometriosis: cited among other conditions, specifically noting a device formulation used to treat endometriosis symptoms, though the paper's main focus is general contraceptive practice.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Full text 9,035 characters · extracted from oa-html · click to expand
The content is available as a PDF (331.1 KB). Bibliografía - 1.Arribas L. Panorama anticonceptivo 2002. Aten Primaria. 2002;29:359–365. doi: 10.1016/S0212-6567(02)70584-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 2.Lete I., Bermejo R., Coll C., Dueñas J.L., Doval J.L., Martínez-Salmeán J. Spanish population at risk of unwanted pregnancy: results of a national survey. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2003;8:75–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 3.Menéndez V., Fernández M.J., Doval X.L., Blanco S., García A., Gulín R. Comparación en el uso del dispositivo intrauterine (DIU) entre médicos de familia y ginecólogos. Aten Primaria. 1998;22:622–626. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 4.Vos A.A., Veldhuis H.M., Lagro-Janssen T.L. Intrauterine contraception: the role of general practitioners in four Ducth general practice. Contraception. 2004;69:283–287. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 5.Johansen J.R., Dupont M., Obel E.B. Insertion of intrauterine device in general practice.Wich womwn choose the IUD, and how is the procedure done? Ugeskr Laeger. 2001;163:4574–4577. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 6.Canavan T.P. Appropiate use of the intrauterine device. American Family Physician. 1998;58:2077–2084. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 7.Weisberg E., Fraser I.S., Goss S. The decline in popularity of the intrauterine device. A survey of general practitioner attitudes and practices in New South Wales. Med J Aust. 1994;160:19–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 8.Cheng D. Family planning training in Maryland family practice and obstetrics/gynecology residency programs. J Am Med Women Assoc. 1999;54:208–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 9.World Health Organization. Reproductive Health and Research . Third edition. WHO Geneva; Geneva: 2004. Improving access to quality care in family planning.Medical eligibility criteria for contraceptive use. Disponible en http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth. [Google Scholar] - 10.Actualización del manejo clínico de la anticoncepción intrauterine Recomendaciones de la Conferencia de Consenso. Progresos de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2002;45:457. Disponible en: www.sec.es. [Google Scholar] - 11.Hatcher R.A., Trussel J., Stewart G.K., Cates W., Jr, Stewart G.K., Guest F. 17th rev. ed. Ardent Media; New York: 1998. Contraceptive technology. [Google Scholar] - 12.Hatcher R.A., Nelson A.L., Zieman M., Darney P.D., Creinin M.D., Stosur H.R. Bridging the Gap Foundation; Tiger, Georgia: 2003. A pocket guide to managing contraception. [Google Scholar] - 13.Gupta S., Miller J.E. A survey of GP views in intra-uterine contraception. Br J Fam Plann. 2000;26:81–84. doi: 10.1783/147118900101194300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 14.Martínez F., Parera N., Carreras O. Asesoramiento de la usuaria del sistema de liberación intra-uterino de levonorgestrel (SIULNG) Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidad. 2001;18:125–132. [Google Scholar] - 15.Hubacher D., Cheng D. Intrauterine devices and reproductive health: American women in feast and famine. Contraception. 2004;69:437–446. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2004.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 16.Weiss E., Moore K. An assessment of the quality of information available on the Internet about the IUD and the potential impact on contraceptives choices. Contraception. 2003;68:359–364. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.07.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 17.Makkonen K., Hemminki E., Tuimala R. Pros and cons of intrauterine contraception – do perceptions of users and physicians differ? Scand J Prim Health Care. 1994;12:190–196. doi: 10.3109/02813439409003698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 18.Kokonya D.A., Sinei S.K., Sekadde-Kingodu C.B., Morrison C.S., Kwok C., Weiner D.H. Experience con IUCD insertion outside of menses in Kenia. East Afr Med J. 2000;77:369–373. doi: 10.4314/eamj.v77i7.46675. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 19.World Health Organization . 2.ª ed. WHO; Geneva: 2002. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use. Disponible en: www.who.int/reproductive-health. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 20.Reuter S. The emergency intrauterine device: an endangered species. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2003;29:5. doi: 10.1783/147118903101197421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 21.Reuter S. Barriers to the use of IUDS as emergency contraception. Br J Fam Plann. 1999;25:61–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 22.Grimes D.A., Schulz K.F. Prophylactic antibiotics for intrauterine device insertion: a metaanalysis of the randomized controlled trials. Contraception. 1999;60:57–63. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(99)00071-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 23.Hostynek J.J., Maibach H.I. Copper hypersensitivity: dermatologic aspects – an overview. Rev Environ Healt. 2003;18:153–183. doi: 10.1515/reveh.2003.18.3.153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 24.Hurskainen R., Teperi J., Rissanen P., Aalto A.M., Grenman S., Kivelä A. Quality of life and cost-effectiveness of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus hysterectomy for treatment of menorrhagia: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001;357:273–277. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03615-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 25.Lähteenmäki P., Haukkamaa M., Puolakka J., Riikonen U., Sainio S., Suvisaari J. Open randomised study of use of levonor-gestrel releasing intrauterine system as alternative to histerectomy. BMJ. 1998;316:122–126. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7138.1122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 26.Hubacher D., Lara-Ricalde R., Taylor D.J., Guerra-Infante F., Guzmán-Rodríguez R. Use of cooper intrauterine devices and the risk of tubal infertility among nulligravid women. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:561–567. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 27.Darney P.D. Time to pardon the IUD? N Engl J Med. 2001;345:608–609. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200108233450810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 28.Thonneau P, Guolard H, Goyaux N. Risk factors for intrauterine device failure: a review. Contraception. 201;64:33-7. [DOI] [PubMed] - 29.Martínez F., Giménez E., Hernández G., Alvarez D., Tejada M. Experience with GyneFIX insertions in Spain: favorable acceptance of the intrauterine contraceptive implant with some limitations. Contraception. 2002;66:315–320. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(02)00392-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 30.Speroff D. 2.ª ed. Marban Libros S.L.; Madrid: 1998. Contracepción. [Google Scholar] - 31.Andersson K., Ryde-Bmqvist E., Lindell K., Odlind V., Milsom I. Perforations with intrauterine devices. Report from a Swedish survey. Contraception. 1998;57:251–255. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00029-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 32.Ylikorkala O., Viinikka L. Comparison between antifibrinolytic and antiprostaglandin treatment in the reduction of increased menstrual blood loss in women with intrauterine contraceptive devices. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1983;90:78–83. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1983.tb06751.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 33.Makarainen L., Ylikorkala O. Ibuprofen prevents IUCD-induced increases in menstrual blood loss. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;93:285–288. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07910.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 34.Davies A.J., Anderson A.B., Turnbull A.C. Reduction by naproxen of excesive menstrual bleeding in women using intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol. 1981;57:74–78. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 35.Grimes D.A. Intrauterine device and upper-genital-tract infection. Lancet. 2000;356:1013–1019. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02699-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 36.Shelton J.D. Risk of clinical pelvic inflammatory disease attributable to an intrauterine device. Lancet. 2001;357:443. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)04012-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 37.Backman T., Rauramo I., Huhtala S., Koskenvuo M. Pregnancy during the use of levonorgestrel intrauterine system. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2004;190:50–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.07.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 38.Guillebaud J. Scheme for management of lost IUD threads. IPPF Med Bull. 1980;14:1–3. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 39.Janowitz B., Hubacher D., Petrick T., Dighe N. Should the recommended number of IUD revisits be reduced? Stud Fam Plann. 1994;25:362–367. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 40.Hubacher D., Fortney J. Follow-up visits after IUD insertion. Are mor better? J Reprod Med. 1999;44:801–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 41.Neuteboom K., De Kroon C.D., Dersjant-Roorda M., Jansen F.W. Follow-up visits after IUD-insertion: sense or nonsense? A technology assessment study to analyze the effectiveness of follow-up visits after IUD insertion. Contraception. 2003;68:101–104. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(03)00111-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] - 42.Cobellis L., Razzi S., Fava A., Severi F., Igarashi M., Petraglia F. A danazol-loaded intrauterine device decreases dysmenorrhea, pelvic pain, and dyspareunia associated with endometriosis. Fertility and Sterility. 2004;82:239–240. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-html ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

MeSH descriptors

Family Practice Intrauterine Devices Equipment Design Family Practice Family Practice Female Humans

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-10-18T09:30:06.152893+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:03:37.664955+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-23T06:24:35.503409+00:00