Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Ongoing barriers to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception: a physician survey

Contraception and Reproductive Medicine20183:23

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40834-018-0078-5

  • Received: 27 June 2018
  • Accepted: 9 October 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Postpartum women are at risk for unintended pregnancy. Access to immediate long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) may help decrease this risk, but it is unclear how many providers in the United States routinely offer this to their patients and what obstacles they face. Our primary objective was to determine the proportion of United States obstetric providers that offer immediate postpartum LARC to their obstetric patients.

Methods

We surveyed practicing Fellows and Junior Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) about their use of immediate postpartum LARC. These members are demographically representative of ACOG members as a whole and represent all of the ACOG districts. Half of these Fellows were also part of the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network (CARN), a group of ACOG members who voluntarily participate in research. We asked about their experience with and barriers to immediate placement of intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants after delivery.

Results

There were a total of 108 out of 600 responses (18%). Participants practiced in a total of 36 states and/or US territories and their median age was 52 years. Only 26.9% of providers surveyed offered their patients immediate postpartum LARC, and of these providers, 60.7% work in a university-based practice. There was a statistically significant association between offering immediate postpartum LARC and practice type, with the majority of providers working at a university-based practice (p < 0.001). Multiple obstacles were identified, including cost or reimbursement, device availability, and provider training on device placement in the immediate postpartum period.

Conclusion

The majority of obstetricians surveyed do not offer immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception to patients in the United States. This is secondary to multiple obstacles faced by providers.

Keywords

  • Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception

Background

In recent years in the United States, there has been a decline in the unintended pregnancy rate from 51 to 45% [1]. Although this change represents an improvement, the United States continues to have higher rates of unintended pregnancy than many parts of northern and Western Europe [2]. As a result, improving women’s health by decreasing unintended pregnancies remains one of the goals of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [3]. Increasing patient access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) is one method which may aid in reducing the unintended pregnancy rate further. Specifically, immediate postpartum LARC placement, or LARC placement prior to hospital discharge, may help decrease the unintended pregnancy rate.

Unfortunately, only about a third of women who desire postpartum LARC will ultimately obtain it by 8–12 weeks postpartum, if they do not obtain it before hospital discharge [46]. This has been demonstrated with regards to both intrauterine devices and contraceptive implants. Not only are these women at risk for unintended pregnancy but they are also at risk for short inter-pregnancy interval, even if they are given an alternative contraceptive in the interim [4].

Given the potential benefits of immediate postpartum LARC, ACOG recommends counseling women prenatally about the options of immediate postpartum LARC and offering immediate postpartum LARC as an effective option for postpartum contraception [7]. Despite these recommendations, it remains unclear what proportion of U.S. obstetricians offer immediate postpartum LARC to their patients. We hypothesize that despite ACOG’s recommendations regarding immediate postpartum LARC, many providers are not offering it to their patients.

Methods

We conducted an online survey to assess whether physicians who provide obstetric care in the United States were offering immediate postpartum LARC to their patients. This included any commercially available intrauterine device or subcutaneously placed contraceptive implant. The survey was distributed to 600 physicians who were practicing Fellows and Junior Fellows of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Of these 600 physicians surveyed, 300 were randomly selected members of the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network (CARN), a group of 1400 ACOG members who voluntarily participate in research. These members are demographically representative of ACOG members as a whole and represent all of the ACOG districts [8]. 300 additional surveys were sent to randomly selected ACOG Fellows who are not part of CARN.

The initial study e-mail was sent in May 2017, and data collection ended July 2017. Providers received up to six reminder e-mails. Emails included a link to opt-out of participation. Respondents who did not provide obstetric care were ineligible to participate and, therefore, excluded.

The primary study outcome assessed was whether obstetric providers are offering immediate postpartum LARC to patients. The secondary study outcome assessed was identification of obstacles which providers face with regards to offering immediate postpartum LARC. These included obstacles surrounding adequate training, reimbursement, LARC device availability, and concern about intrauterine device expulsion. Demographic criteria were collected for all participating providers.

Statistical analysis was performed using both SAS 9.4, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, and Microsoft Excel, Version 14.7.6. P-values are the result of Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. This study was approved by the Rutgers Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (Newark, NJ).

Results

Of the 600 survey e-mails sent out, there were 108 responses (18%) (Fig. 1). Four of the participants did not provide obstetric care and were excluded from the study. Eighty-two of the 104 participants, or 79%, were CARN members. Demographic data is shown in Table 1. The mean age of survey respondents was 52 years old, with a range from 32 to 76 years old. Respondents were based in 36 states and/or US territories.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Participants included in the study. A total of 4 participants who completed the survey were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria. CARN Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network. ACOG American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of survey participants

 

All (N = 104)

Provides IP LARC

(N = 28)

Does not provide IP LARC

(N = 76)

p - values

Median Age (Years)

52

55

49

p = 0.21

Median Years in Practice

19.5

23

15.5

P = 0.30

Racial/ethnic group

 White

81.7%

82.1%

81.6%

P = 0.61

 Black or African American

4.8%

3.6%

5.3%

 Hispanic or Latino

1.0%

3.6%

0

 Asian

9.6%

7.1%

10.5%

 American Indian or Alaskan Native

0

0

0

 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0

0

0

 Multiracial

2.9%

3.6%

2.6%

Practice Location

 

 Urban, Inner City

23.1%

50.0%

13.2%

*p < 0.001

 Urban, Non-inner City

23.1%

32.1%

19.7%

 Suburban

34.6%

10.7%

43.4%

 Mid-sized

11.5%

3.6%

14.4%

 Rural

7.7%

3.6%

9.2%

Practice Setting

 Solo private practice

6.7%

0

9.2%

*p < 0.001

 OB-GYN Partnership Group

36.5%

7.1%

47.4%

 Multispecialty Group

11.5%

10.7%

11.8%

 Military/Government

1.9%

7.1%

0

 University Based

26.9%

60.7%

14.4%

 HMO Staff Model

5.8%

3.6%

6.6%

 Other

10.8%

10.7%

10.5%

P-values are the result of Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test for age and years in practice. *p-values < 0.05 are considered significant

Of the 104 respondents, 97 (93.3%) placed intrauterine devices (IUDs) and 88 (84.6%) placed etonogesterel contraceptive implants in their practice. However, only 28 (26.9%) providers surveyed provide immediate postpartum LARC to their obstetric patients. On the other hand, 84 (80.8%) providers in the study offered placement at the time of their first postpartum visit.

Of the 76 providers who did not offer immediate postpartum LARC, most reported multiple barriers including lack of IUD device availability, lack of implant device availability, problems with cost or reimbursement, a lack of training to place immediately postpartum IUDs, and concern over high expulsion rates of IUDs (Table 2). Interestingly, 11 (14.5%) participants who do not offer immediate postpartum LARC reported that their patients are not interested in this method. Furthermore, 59 (77.6%) providers who did not currently offer immediate postpartum LARC would either like to offer or would consider offering this method of contraception in the future. Similarly, 65 (85.5%) of these providers would either like to participate or would consider participating in training to place immediate postpartum IUDs.
Table 2

Physician’s perceived barriers to offering immediate postpartum LARC amongst providers who DO NOT offer it

Perceived Barriers to Immediate Postpartum LARC

Response Rate

N = 76

Implant Device availability

55 (72.4%)

IUD Device Availability

52 (68.4%)

Cost or Reimbursement of IUDs

41 (53.9%)

Cost or Reimbursement of implants

44 (57.9%)

Lack of training to place IP-IUDs

36 (47.4%)

High expulsion rate of IUDs

29 (38.2%)

Lack of patient interest

11 (14.5%)

Other*

14 (18.4%)

Participants could select multiple barriers. *Other common barriers reported include a high follow-up of postpartum patients negating the necessity of immediate postpartum placement (N = 3) and working in a Catholic hospital (N = 3). LARC Long acting reversible contraception, IUD intrauterine device, IP immediate postpartum

Of the 28 providers who do offer immediate postpartum LARC, survey respondents reported similar barriers including cost or reimbursement (57.1%), availability of devices (42.9%), and lack of patient interest (14.3%). There was no significant relationship between offering immediate postpartum LARC and provider age. Of the providers who did offer immediate postpartum LARC to their patients, 17 (60.7%) worked in a university-based practice. There was a significant relationship between offering immediate postpartum LARC and practice type with the majority of providers working at a university-based practice (p < 0.001). Providers working at a university-based practice were significantly more likely to offer immediate postpartum LARC than providers working in any other practice setting (P < 0.001).

The survey also assessed participants’ knowledge about immediate postpartum LARC placement. When the participants were asked the optimal time frame to place an immediate postpartum IUD, only 56 (53.8%) providers gave the correct response of placing one within ten minutes of delivery of the placenta.

Discussion

Despite the recommendation by ACOG to offer immediate postpartum LARC to obstetric patients, most of our survey participants do not. University-based physicians were significantly more likely to offer immediate postpartum LARC to their patients than those based in other practice settings. On the other hand, there was no association between offering immediate postpartum LARC and age of the provider or number of years in practice.

Compared to a 2014 physician survey of ACOG members where only 7% of obstetricians provided immediate postpartum IUD placement, our survey indicates a modest increase in obstetricians providing immediate postpartum LARC [9]. However, the overall percentage of obstetricians providing this service remains low. This finding remains consistent across other obstetric providers, including midwives and family medicine physicians [10, 11] and continues to highlight the need for increased training related to immediate postpartum LARC.

This survey identifies multiple perceived barriers which providers face when considering offering immediate postpartum LARC. The most common barrier we identified was lack of access to devices on labor and delivery and on the postpartum unit. Other barriers include cost or reimbursement and a lack of training of physicians in placement of immediate postpartum LARC. Despite these barriers, most of the providers still desired training and the ability to offer their patients immediate postpartum LARC.

A strength of our study is that our sample includes physicians from across the country with a wide age range and variety of practice situations. Although our sample size is small, the majority of respondents were involved with CARN, a research network, and therefore were more likely to be affiliated with a University practice. Thus, it is likely that any selection bias present would be biased towards providers being more likely to offer immediate postpartum LARC. Additionally, although it is important to understand the role of perceived barriers in contributing to the physician’s decision to provide immediate postpartum LARC, more studies are needed to better understand how such barriers affect implementation of this service.

Many women in the postpartum period resume sexual intercourse before 6 weeks [1215] with one study reporting 15.2% of women engaging in intercourse within four weeks after delivery [15]. Reported incidences of resumption of sexual intercourse range from 27.6 to 62% by 6 weeks [1416]. Given that women may start ovulating as early as 25 days postpartum, this places them at increased risk for unintended pregnancy if they are not using reliable contraception. Furthermore, since many women are not seen for their postpartum visit until after possible ovulation, they are unlikely to have access to reliable contraception between hospital discharge and their postpartum visit. Harney et al. found that 38% of women who had planned for postpartum LARC did not attend their postpartum visit, with 11.4% conceiving after a short inter-pregnancy interval [4]. It is well established that a short inter-pregnancy interval is associated with increased maternal and fetal complications including increased rates of preterm delivery and preeclampsia [1719]. Increasing access to LARC in the immediate postpartum period decreases a woman’s chance of short inter-pregnancy interval during the postpartum period [20]. In addition to decreasing unintended pregnancies, there are potential cost savings which may result from increased access to LARC [21, 22].

To begin to address the existing barriers, some research has been performed on implementation of successful immediate postpartum LARC programs. Hofler et al. suggest that successful strategies for implementation of immediate postpartum LARC include a multidisciplinary approach with three essential elements: early involvement of multidisciplinary team members consisting of those who provide direct clinical care, pharmacy and billing personnel; early reassurance and understanding of hospital financial status; and ongoing effective team communication with establishment of clear roles and responsibilities [23]. However, due to the many complexities of theses systems and variations between states, programs will likely need to trouble shoot the obstacles which arise [23].

Conclusion

The majority of obstetricians surveyed do not offer immediate postpartum LARC to patients in the United States. This occurs despite the recommendations of ACOG to offer it to all obstetric patients, and seems to be secondary to multiple obstacles that providers face. We must continue to seek ways to overcome these obstacles, in order to improve implementation of this vital family planning option.

Abbreviations

ACOG: 

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

CARN: 

Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network, a subset of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

IUD: 

Intrauterine device

LARC: 

Long-acting reversible contraception

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network who participated in our survey.

Funding

This work was supported by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act, Health Resources and Services Administration, and Department of Health and Human Services), Grant UA6MC19010. The funding source had no role in the study design; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; nor the preparation, writing, or submission of this manuscript. The authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors contributions

ECH: Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study as well as interpretation of the data and both drafting and revising the manuscript. EL: Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study as well as interpretation of the data and both drafting and revising the manuscript. SSM: Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study as well as interpretation of the data and both drafting and revising the manuscript. DA: Made substantial contributions to the statistical planning and analysis of the data. OS: Made substantial contributions to study design, the acquisition of data, and has been involved in drafting and revising the manuscript. NC: Made substantial contributions to the study design, acquisition of data, and has been involved in drafting and revising the manuscript. PGM: Made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study as well as interpretation of the data and both drafting and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Rutgers Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (Newark, NJ). Project number: Pro20170000321. It was initially approved on 4/10/17.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, 185 South Orange Avenue, E-level, Newark, NJ 07103, USA
(2)
Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, University Reproductive Associates, 214 Terrace Avenue, Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604, USA
(3)
Rutgers University Biostatistics and Epidemiology Services Center, Rutgers University, 65 Bergen St, Newark, NJ 07103, USA
(4)
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington, Box 356460, Seattle, WA 98195-6460, USA
(5)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 409 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 2002420024-9998, USA

References

  1. Finer LB, Zolna MR. Declines in unintended pregnancy in the United States, 2008-2011. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:843–52.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Sedgh G, Singh S, Hussain R. Intended and unintended pregnancies worldwide in 2012 and recent trends. Stud Fam Plan. 2014;45:301–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Robbins CL, Zapata LB, Farr SL, et al. Core state preconception health indicators — pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system and behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 2009. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2014;63:1–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Harney C, Dude A, Haider S. Factors associated with short Interpregnancy interval in women who plan postpartum LARC: a retrospective study. Contraception. 2017;95:245–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Sothornwit J, Werawatakul Y, Kaewrudee S, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M. Immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of contraceptive implant for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD011913.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Salcedo J, Moniaga N, Harken T. Limited Uptake of Planned Intrauterine Devices During the Postpartum Period. South Med J. 2015;108(8):463–8. https://doi.org/10.14423/SMJ.0000000000000319.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. Committee opinion no. 670. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128:e32–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Leddy MA, Lawrence H, Schulkin J. Obstetrician-gynecologists and women’s mental health: findings of the collaborative ambulatory research network 2005–2009. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2011;66:316–23.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Luchowski AT, Anderson BL, Power ML, Raglan GB, Espey E, Schulkin J. Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: long-acting reversible contraception practices and education. Contraception. 2014;89(6):578–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.004. View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Moniz MH, Roosevelt L, Crissman HP, Kobernik EK, Dalton VK, Heisler MH, Low LK. Immediate postpartum contraception: a survey needs assessment of a National Sample of midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12653. View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Moniz MH, McEvoy AK, Hofmeister M, Plegue M, Chang T. Family Physicians and Provision of immediate postpartum contraception: a CERA study. Fam Med. 2017;49(8):600–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelly LS, Sheeder J, Stevens-Simon C. Why lightning strikes twice: postpartum resumption of sexual activity during adolescence. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2005;18:327–35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Brito MB, Ferriani RA, Quintana SM, Diogenes Yazlle ME, Silva de Sá MF, Vieira CS. Safety of the etonogestrel-releasing implant during the immediate postpartum period: a pilot study. Contraception. 2009;80:519–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Adanikin AI, Awoleke JO, Adeyiolu A, Alao O, Adanikin PO. Resumption of intercourse after childbirth in Southwest Nigeria. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2015;20:241–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. McDonald EA, Brown SJ. Does method of birth make a difference to when women resume sex after childbirth? BJOG. 2013;120:823–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. von Sydow K. Sexuality during pregnancy and after childbirth: a metacontent analysis of 59 studies. J Psychosom Res. 1999;47:27–49.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhu BP, Rolfs RT, Nangle BE, Horan JM. Effect of the interval between pregnancies on perinatal outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:589.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Fuentes-Afflick E, Hessol NA. Interpregnancy interval and the risk of premature infants. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Conde-Agudelo A, Rosas-Bermúdez A, Kafury-Goeta AC. Effects of birth spacing on maternal health: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196:297.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Brunson MR, Klein DA, Olsen CH, Weir LF, Roberts TA. Postpartum contraception: initiation and effectiveness in a large universal healthcare system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:55.e1–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Trussell J, Henry N, Hassan F, Prezioso A, Law A, Filonenko A. Burden of unintended pregnancy in the United States: potential savings with increased use of long-acting reversible contraception. Contraception. 2013;87:154–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Washington CI, Jamshidi R, Thung SF, Nayeri UA, Caughey AB, Werner EF. Timing of postpartum intrauterine device placement: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(1):131–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.032. View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hofler LG, Cordes S, Cwiak CA, Goedken P, Jamieson DJ, Kottke M. Implementing immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception programs. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129:3–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement