Intrauterine device self-removal practices during the COVID-19 pandemic among family planning clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the prevalence of intrauterine device self-removal practices before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among family planning clinics. STUDY DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of data from a descriptive, longitudinal study using a clinic-based convenience sample from the Abortion Clinical Research Network assessing baseline and pandemic-adaptive family planning practices. RESULTS: Of the 63 sites that provided contraception, 5 (7.9%) reported providing guidance on intrauterine device self-removal at baseline. Sixteen sites (25.4%) provided guidance on self-removal by the end of the study period. Self-removal counseling was associated with being an academic center and reporting a median lower number of monthly contraceptive encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Endorsement of IUD self-removal increased to one-quarter of sites by the final timepoint. IMPLICATIONS: Twenty-five percent of family planning clinics reported provision of intrauterine device self-removal guidance by eight months into the COVID-19 pandemic, a three-fold increase from baseline; these findings suggest clinician support for patient autonomy in contraceptive self-management and limited concern for safety issues with self-removal during a public health emergency.

Dilation and evacuation with an abdominal cerclage at 21 weeks gestation: A case report.

This case demonstrates a successful dilation and evacuation (D&E) at 21 weeks gestation for a patient with abdominal cerclage without initial advanced dilation. We followed a 2-day protocol with placement of 5 laminaria and mifepristone for cervical preparation without complication.

Exploring the experience of IUD self-removal in the United States through posts on internet forums.

OBJECTIVE: Some intrauterine devices (IUD) users self-remove their IUDs, and these experiences are not well understood. This study examines what IUD users post in internet forums about their experience, as well as advice and questions shared among IUD users about self-removal. STUDY DESIGN: This study uses qualitative analysis of internet health and parenting forum postings about IUD self-removal identified from an internet search engine. We analyzed the data using inductive and deductive content analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-eight sites, containing 1742 posts by 1197 unique users, satisfied our eligibility criteria. Users reported successful IUD self-removal attempts as "quick," "easy," and "painless"; it was rare to encounter IUD users describing complications of their self-removal attempts. Users described unsuccessful attempts as failure to find or grasp strings. Many IUD users described their successful removal techniques and gave advice to other users who were struggling with self-removal. Users frequently utilized the forum to ask questions about IUD self-removal methods and timing, pain, when to seek medical intervention, and the effects on future fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Posts describing successful IUD self-removal report positive experiences. IUD users who have difficulty with self-removal may utilize internet forums to learn from others' experiences. IMPLICATIONS: Exploring IUD users' experiences with and questions about self-removal may inform strategies to develop better resources for those who desire self-removal.

"$231 to pull a string!!!" American IUD users' reasons for IUD self-removal: An analysis of internet forums.

OBJECTIVE: The perspectives and experiences of intrauterine device (IUD) users who consider IUD self-removal are largely unknown. This study describes the reasons for IUD self-removal as documented in internet forums by IUD users discussing self-removal. STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative study used an internet search strategy to document IUD users' reasons for self-removal in the United States. We employed a content analysis of online data using inductive and deductive qualitative techniques to examine the reasons why IUD users consider self-removal. RESULTS: Search results initially identified 235 websites, of which 28 had online health or parenting forums with content related to IUD self-removal. Individual websites contained between 1 and 637 posts by between 1 and 454 individual users. IUD users described a variety of reasons for IUD discontinuation including undesired symptoms or side effects as well as planning for pregnancy. IUD users discussed difficulties accessing provider-removal because of cost or lack of appointment availability. IUD users also discussed how reading about others' successful self-removal experiences or approval by medical providers made self-removal a feasible or acceptable option. CONCLUSIONS: Some IUD users utilize online forums for advice about IUD removal, and attempt IUD self-removal due to side effects or because they desire pregnancy. Lack of access to a provider led some patients to attempt self-removal who may have preferred provider-removal. IMPLICATIONS: For those who prefer self-removal, anticipatory counseling from a clinician regarding self-removal might be useful and reassuring. Improving access to self-removal may help preserve reproductive autonomy for those who face barriers to IUD removal in the clinical setting.

Access to IUD removal: Data from a mystery-caller study.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes access and barriers to intrauterine device (IUD) removal appointments in 10 mid-sized cities in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: This mystery caller study utilized a sampling frame of health centers in 10 mid-sized cities gathered from 3 search engines. We gathered data about the timing of the next available appointment, the requirements for additional appointments prior to IUD removal, and the out-of-pocket cost. We used descriptive statistics to describe the availability and cost of IUD removal visits, and compared results between primary care clinics and family planning or gynecology clinics. Any additional information regarding why a visit was not available or other requirements for IUD removal that was provided to the researcher was also recorded. RESULTS: Of 229 clinics included for analysis, 60.7% could offer an IUD removal appointment to the mystery caller, and the majority of these could provide an initial appointment within 2 weeks (61.2%), with a median of 10 days. Of clinics offering IUD removal, 17.3% required more than one visit before removing the IUD, and 43.2% confirmed that IUD removal would occur at the first visit. Five clinics (5.6%) reported that they would not remove an IUD that was not placed at their clinic. Sliding scale fees were offered at 16.3% of clinics. For the clinics that cited an out-of-pocket cost and did not offer sliding scale fees, the median cost of the IUD removal was $262, with a range of $50 to over $1000. Neither appointment availability nor cost differed between primary care and family planning or gynecology clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, timely IUD removal appointments were available at the clinics we sampled, but both financial and clinic policy barriers to IUD removal were documented, including the need for multiple appointments and the total out-of-pocket costs. IMPLICATIONS: In our current climate focused on improving access to IUDs, it is essential to address and reduce barriers to IUD removal when desired, in order to preserve reproductive autonomy.

Providing Abortion Services in the Primary Care Setting.

Patients commonly present with unintended pregnancy in the primary care setting, and 1 in 4 women has an abortion in her lifetime. Early abortion services can be safely provided in the primary care setting. Abortion options provided in primary care settings include both medication abortion and early uterine aspiration abortion. Medication abortion, provided up to 10 weeks' gestational age, includes mifepristone (a progestin antagonist) and misoprostol (a prostaglandin). Uterine aspiration can be provided via manual or electronic vacuum in the first trimester.

Taking the provider "out of the loop:" patients' and physicians' perspectives about IUD self-removal.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the perspectives of patients and providers about intrauterine device (IUD) self-removal. STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative study is a subanalysis of two datasets from a single project, which included semistructured individual interviews with 15 patients and 12 physicians. We derived the data for this analysis from portions of the interviews pertaining to IUD self-removal and provider removal. We analyzed data using deductive and inductive techniques to perform content and thematic analyses. RESULTS: The majority of patients and physicians cited both concerns about and potential benefits of IUD self-removal. Patients cited concerns about safety as the reason they did not wish to remove their own IUD, but physicians did not share these concerns; instead, physicians were apprehensive about not being involved in the discussion to remove the IUD. Both patients and physicians valued having the provider "in the loop" and reported fears about hasty or coerced removal. CONCLUSIONS: IUD self-removal is an option that some patients may be interested in. Addressing concerns about safety may make self-removal more appealing to some patients. Addressing physicians' concern about "hasty" removal may require additional training so that providers are better able to support patients' decision making around contraceptive use. IMPLICATIONS: The option of self-removal could have a positive impact on reproductive autonomy and patient decision making.

"I wish they could hold on a little longer": physicians' experiences with requests for early IUD removal.

OBJECTIVE: This study describes the perceptions and experiences of family physicians when women request early intrauterine device (IUD) removal. STUDY DESIGN: This qualitative study included semistructured individual interviews with 12 physicians who encountered patients seeking early IUD removal. We identified eligible participants via chart review. We analyzed interviews using deductive and inductive techniques to identify content and themes. RESULTS: Physicians consistently referred to IUDs as the "best" or their "favorite" method, and several joked that they tried to "sell" the IUD during contraceptive counseling. Most reported having mixed or negative feelings when patients opted to remove the IUD. Most encouraged their patients to continue the IUD, hoping to delay removal until symptoms resolved so that removal was not needed. Some physicians reported feeling guilty or as if they had "failed" when a patient wanted the IUD removed. Many providers reported a conflict between valuing patient autonomy and feeling that early removal was not in the patient's best interest. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians have complex and contradictory feelings about early IUD removal. While most providers acknowledged the need for patient autonomy, they still reported encouraging IUD continuation based on their own opinion about the IUD. IMPLICATIONS: While IUDs are highly effective and well-liked contraceptives, providers' responses to IUD removal requests have implications for both reproductive autonomy as well as the doctor-patient relationship. More work is needed to ensure that providers remove a patient's IUD when requested.

"She just told me to leave it": Women's experiences discussing early elective IUD removal.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to describe the thoughts and experiences of women who report discussing intrauterine device (IUD) removal within 9 months of insertion. STUDY DESIGN: This is a qualitative study, consisting of semistructured individual interviews with 16 women who considered early elective IUD removal. We identified eligible participants via chart review. We analyzed interviews using a modified grounded theory approach. RESULTS: While pain and bleeding were prominent reasons for removal, women also discussed many other symptoms and concerns. Most women reported a strong desire to have a successful IUD experience, and all reported waiting for symptoms to resolve prior to their visit. Some women reported that providers supported their choice, while others reported that providers preferred that they continue the IUD despite symptoms and concerns. Some women reported providers' resistance or refusal to remove the IUDs. The women who reported that their providers were neutral about IUD removal more frequently expressed satisfaction with the visit. When the provider resisted removal, women felt frustrated, even as they acknowledged their doctor's good intentions. In several cases, this may have hurt the doctor-patient relationship. CONCLUSIONS: When physicians resist early elective IUD removal, it may impact patient satisfaction and even jeopardize the doctor-patient relationship. IMPLICATIONS: Though IUDs are highly effective and well-liked contraceptives, some patients choose to discontinue the method. Because provision of patient-centered contraceptive care includes IUD removal when requested, providers must ensure that their counseling is unbiased and that they do not place perceived or real barriers to IUD removal.